Skip to main content

Full text of "The causes of the corruption of the traditional text of the Holy Gospels; being the sequel to the traditional text of the Holy Gospels"

See other formats

ne giant bad eon 

2 Sanby top me ner 

DONE THe pean TE 

te eam. 

> am. sig 

j * 
- n 
. Pi - 
~ - r< 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2007 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 

https ‘// 

ite the British 




Luzao d Co., 











Orford . 







HOLY, G@sPers 












‘Tenet ecclesia nostra, tenuitque semper firmam illam et 
immotam Tertulliani regulam “Id verius quod prius, id prius 
quod ab initio.” Quo propius ad veritatis fontem accedimus, 
eo purior decurrit Catholicae doctrinae rivus.’ 

Cave’s Proleg. p. xliv. 

‘Interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona, et 
ambulate in ea.’—Jerem. vi. 16. 

‘In summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab 
initio, id ab initio quod ab Apostolis ; pariter utique constabit, 
id esse ab Apostolis traditum, quod apud Ecclesias Aposto- 
lorum fuerit sacrosanctum.’—TERTULL. adv. Mare. |. iv. c. 5. 


THE reception given by the learned world to the 
First Volume of this work, as expressed hitherto 
in smaller reviews and notices, has on the whole 
been decidedly far from discouraging. All have had 
some word of encomium on our efforts. Many have 
accorded praise and signified their agreement, some- 
times with unquestionable ability. Some have pro- 
nounced adverse opinions with considerable candour 
and courtesy. Others in opposing have employed 
arguments so weak and even irrelevant to the real 
question at issue, as to suggest that there is not 
after all so much as I anticipated to advance against 
our case. Longer examinations of this important 
matter are doubtless impending, with all the interest 
attaching to them and the judgements involved: but 
I beg now to offer my acknowledgements for all the 
words of encouragement that have been uttered. 

Something however must be said in reply to an 
attack made in the Guardian newspaper on May 20, 
because it represents in the main the position 
occupied by some members of an existing School. 
I do not linger over an offhand stricture upon my 
‘adhesion to the extravagant claim of a second- 
century origin for the Peshitto, because I am 


vi. - PREFACE. 

content with the companionship of some of the very 
first Syriac scholars, and with the teaching given 
in an unanswered article in the Church Quarterly 
Review for April, 1895. Nor except in passing 
do I remark upon a fanciful censure of my account 
of the use of papyrus in MSS. before the tenth 
century—as to which the reviewer is evidently not 
versed in information recently collected, and de- 
scribed for example in Sir E. Maunde Thompson's 
Greek and Latin Palaeography, or in Mr. F. G. 
Kenyon’s Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 
and in an article in the just mentioned Review 
which appeared in October, 1894. These obser- 
vations and a large number of inaccuracies shew 
that he was at the least not posted up to date. But 
what will be thought, when attention is drawn to 
the fact that in a question whether a singular set of 
quotations from the early Fathers refer to a passage 
in St. Matthew or the parallel one in St. Luke, the 
peculiar characteristic of St. Matthew—‘ them that 
persecute you’—is put out of sight, and both 
passages (taking the lengthened reading of St. 
Matthew) are represented as having equally only 
four clauses? And again, when quotations going 
on to the succeeding verse in St. Matthew (v. 45) 
are stated dogmatically to have been wrongly 
referred by me to that Evangelist? But as to the 
details of this point in dispute, I beg to refer our 
readers to pp. 144-153 of the present volume. The 
reviewer appears also to be entirely unacquainted 
with the history of the phrase povoyevyjs Ocds in 
St. John i. 18, which, as may be read on pp. 215-218, 
was introduced by heretics and harmonized with 


Arian tenets, and was rejected on the other side. 
That some orthodox churchmen fell into the trap, 
and like those who in these days are not aware of 
the pedigree and use of the phrase, employed it even 
for good purposes, is only an instance of a strange 
phenomenon. We must not be led only by first 
impressions as to what is to be taken for the genuine 
words of the Gospels. Even if phrases or passages 
make for orthodoxy, to accept them if condemned 
by evidence and history is to alight upon the quick- 
sands of conjecture. 

A curious instance of a fate like this has been 
supplied by a critic in the Athenaeum, who, when 
contrasting Dean Burgon’s style of writing with 
mine to my discredit, quotes a passage of some 
length as the Dean’s which was really written 
by me. Surely the principle upheld by our oppo- 
nents, that much more importance than we allow 
should be attributed to the ‘Internal evidence 
of Readings and Documents, might have saved 
him from error upon a piece of composition which 
characteristically proclaimed its own origin. At all 
events, after this undesigned support, I am the 
less inclined to retire from our vantage ground. 

But it is gratifying on all accounts to say now, 
that such interpolations as in the companion volume 
I was obliged frequently to supply in order to 
fill up gaps in the several MSS. and in integral 
portions of the treatise, which through their very 
frequency would have there made square brackets 
unpleasant to our readers, are not required so often 
in this part of the work. Accordingly, except in 
instances of pure editing or in simple bringing up 

viii PREFACE. 

to date, my own additions or insertions have been 
so marked off. It will doubtless afford great 
satisfaction to others as well as the admirers of 
the Dean to know what was really his own writing : 
and though some of the MSS., especially towards 
the end of the volume, were not left as he would 
have prepared them for the press if his life had 
been prolonged, yet much of the book will afford, 
on what he regarded as the chief study of his life, 
excellent examples of his style, so vigorously fresh 
and so happy in idiomatic and lucid expression. 

But the Introduction, and Appendix II on ‘ Con- 
flation’ and the ‘ Neutral Text, have been neces- 
sarily contributed by me. I am anxious to invite 
attention particularly to the latter essay, because 
it has been composed upon request, and also 
because—unless it contains some extraordinary 
mistake—it exhibits to a degree which has amazed 
me the baselessness of Dr. Hort’s theory. 

The manner in which the Dean prepared piece- 
meal for his book, and the large number of frag- 
ments in which he left his materials, as has been 
detailed in the Preface to the former volume, have 
necessarily produced an amount of repetition which 
I deplore. To have avoided it entirely, some of 
the MSS. must have been rewritten. But in one 
instance I discovered when it was too late that after 
searching for, and finding with difficulty and treating, 
an example which had not been supplied, I had 
forestalled a subsequent examination of the same 
passage from his abler hand. However I hope 
that in nearly all, if not all cases, each treatment 
involves some new contribution to the question 


discussed; and that our readers will kindly make 
allowance for the perplexity which such an assem- 
blage of separate papers could not but entail. 

My thanks are again due to the Rev. G. H. 
Gwilliam, B.D., Fellow of Hertford College, for 
much, advice and suggestion, which he is so capable 
of giving, and for his valuable care in looking 
through all the first proofs of this volume; to 
‘M. W., Dean Burgon’s indefatigable secretary, 
who in a pure labour of love copied out the text 
of the MSS. before and after his death; also to the 
zealous printers at the Clarendon Press, for help in 
unravelling intricacies still remaining in them. 

This treatise is now commended to the fair and © 
candid consideration of readers and reviewers. The 
latter body of men should remember that there was 
perhaps never a time when reviewers were them- 
selves reviewed by many intelligent readers more 
than they are at present. I cannot hope that all 
that we have advanced will be finally adopted, 
though my opinion is unfaltering as resting in my 
belief upon the Rock; still less do I imagine that 
errors may not be discovered in our work. But 
I trust that under Divine Blessing some not un- 
important contribution has been made _ towards 
the establishment upon sound principles of the 
reverent criticism of the Text of the New Testa- 
ment. And I am sure that, as to the Dean's part 
in it, this trust will be ultimately justified. 


g Brapmore Roap, Oxrorp: 
Sept. 2, 1896. 


The Traditional Text—established by evidence—especially before 
St. Chrysostom — corruption—early rise of it—Galilee of the Gentiles— 
Syrio-Low-Latin source—various causes and forms of corruption . pp. I-9 


§ 1. Modern re-editing—difference between the New Testament and 
other books—immense number of copies—ordinary causes of error— 
Doctrinal causes. § 2. Elimination of weakly attested readings—nature 
of inquiry. § 3. Smaller blemishes in MSS. unimportant except when 
constant. § 4. Most mistakes arose from inadvertency: many from 
unfortunate design. : : : = R R - pp. Io-23 


AccIDENTAL CAusEs oF CorrRufTion. I. Pure ACCIDENT. 

 § 1. St. John x. 29. § 2. Smaller instances, and Acts xx. 24. 
§ 8. St. Luke ii. 14. § 4. St. Mark xv. €; vii. 4; vi. 22. § 5. St. Mark 
viii. 1; vii. 14—St. John xiii. 37 . ‘ . be : : + Pp. 24-35 

AccIDENTAL CausEs oF Corrurtion. II. HomoroTELEuTon. 

St. Luke ii. 15—St. John vi. 11; vi. 55—St. Matt. xxiii. 14; xix. g— 
St. Luke xvi. 21. ‘ ° 3 5 F #3 : - pp. 36-41 





§ 1. St. John iv. 35-36. § 2. St. Luke xv. 17—St. John v. 44. 
§ 8. Acts xxvii. 14—St. John iv. 15—St. Luke xvii. 37—St. Matt. xxii. 
23—and other passages. § 4. St. John v. 4—St. Luke xxiii. 11— 
St. Matt. iv. 23. § 5. 2 St. Peter i 21—Heb.vii. 1. § 6. St. Matt. 

EVIL 7! 2 . < F fs : A : = + pp. 42-55 



§ 1. Various passages—St. John xii. 1,2; 41. § 2. Rev. i. 5—Other 
passages—St. Mark vil. 19. § 3. St. Markiv. 8 § 4. Titusii.5. pp. 56-66 



§ 1. Lectionaries of the Church—Liturgical influence—Antiquity of 
the Lectionary System. § 2. St. John xiv. 1—Acts iii. r:—Last Twelve 
Verses of St. Mark. § 3. St. Luke vii. 31; ix. 1—Other passages. 

§ 4. St. Mark xv. 28. § 5. Acts iii. r—St. Matt. xiii. 44; xvii. 23. 
§ 6. St. Matt. vi. 13 (doxology ir the Lord’s Prayer) . ‘ - pp. 67-88 


I. Harmovyistic INFLUENCE. 
§ 1. St. Mark xvi. 9. § 2. 5t. Luke xxiv. 1—other examples. 

§ 3. Chiefly intentional—Diatesserons—St. Matt. xvii. 25, 26—Har- 
monized narratives—Other exampees . “ . - pp. 89-99 


§ 1. Transfer from one Gospel tc another. § 2. Not entirely inten- 
tional—Various passages. § 3. St. John xvi. 16. § 4. St. John xiii. 

21-25. § 5. St. Mark i. 1, 2—Other examples—St. Matt. xii. ro (St. Luke 
xiv. 3)—and others. § 6. St. Mark vi, rr. § 7. St. Mark xiv. 70 

pp. 100-122 





§ 1. St. John vi. 71 and xiii. 26. § 2. Acts xx. 24—2 Cor. iii. 3 
pp. 123-127 


IV. Omission. 

§ 1. Omissions a class of their own—Exemplified from the Last 
Twelve Verses of St. Mark—Onmission the besetting fault of transcribers, 
§ 2. The onus probandi rests upon omitters. § 3. St. Luke vi. 1; 
and other omissions. § 4. St. Matt. xxi. 44. § 5. St. Matt. xv. 8. 
§ 6. St. Matt. v. 44—Reply to the Reviewer in the Guardian. 
§ 7. Shorter Omissions . : : Z 5 - = . pp. 128-156 


§ 1. St. Mark i. 5; ii. g3—Other instances. § 2. St. Luke xiii. 9; 

xxiv. 7. § 38. Other examples—St. John v. 27—Transpositions often 
petty, but frequent . = : r ; ; 2 7 + pp. 157-163 


§ 4. If taken with Modifications, a large class—Various instances 
pp. 164-165 
VII. Appition. 

§ 5. The smallest of the four—St. Luke vi. 4—St. Matt. xx. 28. 
§ 6. St. Matt. viii. 13; xxiv. 36—St. Mark iii. 16—Other examples 
pp. 166-171 


VIII. GtLosses. 

§ 1. Not so numerous as has been supposed—St. Matt. xiii. 36— 
St. Mark vii.3. § 2. St. Luke ix. 23. § 8. St. John vi. 15; xiii. 24; 
xx. 18—St. Matt. xxiv. 31. § 4. St. John xviii. 14—St. Mark vi. 11. 
§ 5. St. Mark xiv. 41—St. John ix. 22. § 6. St. John xii. 7. 
§ 7. St. John xvii. 4. § 8 St. Luke i. 66. § 9. St. Luke v. 7— 
Acts xx. 4 : 5 : : ° : : ‘ é « pp. 172-190 



IX. Corruption By HERETICs. 
§ 1. This class very evident—Began in the earliest times—Appeal to 
what is earlier still—Condemned in all ages and countries. § 2. The 
earliest depravers of the Text—Tatian’s Diatessaron. § 8. Gnostics— 
St. John i. 3-4. § 4. St. John x. 14,15. § 5. Doctrinal—Matrimony 
—St. Matt.i.19. . : ° : : = ; . Pp. IgI-2I0 



§/1.-St; Luke xix: 41; ii. 40. § 2. (St Johbn~vill? 463 and:i:-78: 
§ 3. 1 Cor. xv. 47. § 4. St. John iii. 1g. § 5. St. Luke ix, 54-56 

pp. 211-231 
PERICOPE DE ADULTERA . : ; : . pp. 232-265 
NEUTRAL TEXT . : : ‘ ; . pp. 266-286 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS . : ‘ : ; . pp. 287-288 

DiIscussED . ; : , ‘ ‘ - pp. 289 290 



_\s In the companion volume to this, the Traditional Text, 
that is, the Text of the Gospels which is the resultant 
of all the evidence faithfully and exhaustively presented 
and estimated according to the best procedure of the courts 
of law, has been traced back to the earliest ages in the 
existence of those sacred writings. We have shewn, that 
on the one hand, amidst the unprecedented advantages 
afforded by modern conditions of life for collecting all the 
evidence bearing upon the subject, the Traditional Text 
must be found, not in a mere transcript, but in a laborious 
revision of the Received Text; and that on the other 
hand it must, as far as we can judge, differ but slightly 
from the Text now generally in vogue, which has been 
generally received during the last two and a half centuries. 

The strength of the position of the Traditional Text lies 
in its being logically deducible and to be deduced from 
all the varied evidence which the case supplies, when it 
has been sifted, proved, passed, weighed, compared, com- 
pounded, and contrasted with dissentient testimony. The 
contrast is indeed great in almost all instances upon 

Ii. B 


which controversy has gathered. On one side the 
vast mass of authorities is assembled: on the other 
stands a small group. Not inconsiderable is the ad- 
vantage possessed by that group, as regards numerous 
students who do not look beneath the surface, in the 
general witness in their favour borne by the two oldest 
MSS. of the Gospels in existence. That advantage 
however shrinks into nothing under the light of rigid 
examination. The claim for the Text in them made at 
the Semiarian period was rejected when Semiarianism 
in all its phases fell into permanent disfavour. And the 
argument advanced by Dr. Hort that the Traditional 
Text was a new Text formed by successive recensions 
has been refuted upon examination of the verdict of the 
Fathers in the first four centuries, and of the early Syriac 
and Latin Versions. Besides all this, those two manu- 
scripts have been traced to a local source in the library 
of Caesarea. And on the other hand a Catholic origin of 
the Traditional Text found on later vellum manuscripts 
has been discovered in the manuscripts of papyrus which 
existed all over the Roman Empire, unless it was in Asia, 
and were to some degree in use even as late as the ninth 
century; before and during the employment of vellum in 
the Caesarean school, and in localities where it was used in 
imitation of the mode of writing books which was brought 
well-nigh to perfection in that city. 

It is evident that the turning-point of the controversy 
between ourselves and the Neologian school must lie in 
the centuries before St. Chrysostom. If, as Dr. Hort 
maintains, the Traditional Text not only gained supremacy 
at that era but did not exist in the early ages, then our 
contention is vain. That Text can be Traditional only 
if it goes back without break or intermission to the original 
autographs, because if through break or intermission it 
ceased or failed to exist, it loses the essential feature of 


genuine tradition. On the other hand, if it is proved to 
reach back in unbroken line to the time of the Evangelists, 
or to a period as near to them as surviving testimony can 
prove, then Dr. Hort’s theory of a ‘Syrian’ text formed 
by recension or otherwise just as evidently falls to the 
ground. Following mainly upon the lines drawn by Dean 
Burgon, though in a divergence of my own devising, I claim 
to have proved Dr. Hort to have been conspicuously wrong, 
and our maintenance of the Traditional Text in unbroken 
succession to be eminently right. The school opposed to 
us must disprove our arguments, not by discrediting the 
testimony of the Fathers to whom all Textual Critics have 
appealed including Dr. Hort, but by demonstrating if they 
can that the Traditional Text is not recognized by them, 
or they must yield eventually to us}. 

In this volume, the other half of the subject will be 
discussed. Instead of exploring the genuine Text, we 
shall treat of the corruptions of it, and shall track error 
in its ten thousand forms to a few sources or heads. The 
origination of the pure Text in the inspired writings of the 
Evangelists will thus be vindicated anew by the evident 
paternity of deflections from it discoverable in the natural 
defects or iniquities of men. Corruption will the more 
shew itself in true colours :— 

Quinquaginta atris immanis hiatibus hydra?: 

and it will not so readily be mistaken for genuineness, 
when the real history is unfolded, and the mistakes are 
accounted for. It seems clear that corruption arose in the 

1 It must be always borne in mind, that it is not enough for the purpose of 
the other side to shew that the Traditional Text was in a minority as regards 
attestation. They must prove that it was nowhere in the earliest ages, if they 
are to establish their position that it was made in the third and fourth centuries. 
Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 95. 

2 ‘A hydra in her direful shape, 

With fifty darkling throats agape.’— 
Altered from Conington’s version, Aen. vi. 576. 



very earliest age. As soon as the Gospel was preached, 
the incapacity of human nature for preserving accuracy until 
long years of intimate acquaintance have bred familiarity 
must have asserted itself in constant distortion more or 
less of the sacred stories, as they were told and retold 
amongst Christians one to another whether in writing or 
in oral transmission. Mistakes would inevitably arise from 
the universal tendency to mix error with truth which 
Virgil has so powerfully depicted in his description of 
Tam ficti pravique tenax, quam nuntia veri’. 

And as soon as inaccuracy had done its baleful work, a spirit 
of infidelity and of hostility either to the essentials or the 
details of the new religion must have impelled such as 
were either imperfect Christians, or no Christians at all, to 
corrupt the sacred stories. 

Thus it appears that errors crept in at the very first 
commencement of the life of the Church. This is a matter 
so interesting and so important in the history of corruption, 
that I must venture to place it again before our readers. 

Why was Galilee chosen before Judea and Jerusalem as 
the chief scene of our Lord’s Life and Ministry, at least 
as regards the time spent there? Partly, no doubt, because 
the Galileans were more likely than the other inhabitants 
of Palestine to receive Him. But there was as I venture 
to think also another very special reason. 

‘Galilee of the nations’ or ‘the Gentiles, not only had 
a mixed population” and a provincial dialect °, but lay 
contiguous to the rest of Palestine on the one side, and 

1 ‘How oft soe’er the truth she tell, 

What’s false and wrong she loves too well.’— 
Altered from Conington, Aen. iv. 188. 

? Strabo, xvi, enumerates amongst its inhabitants Egyptians, Arabians, and 

* Studia Biblica, i. 50-55. Dr. Neubauer, On the Dialects spoken in 
Palestine in the time of Christ. 


on others to two districts in which Greek was largely 
spoken, namely, Decapolis and the parts of Tyre and Sidon, 
‘and also to the large country of Syria. Our Lord laid 
foundations for a natural growth in these parts of the Chris- 
tian religion after His death almost independent as it seems 
of the centre of the Church at Jerusalem. Hence His 
crossings of the lake, His miracles on the other side, His 
retirement in that little understood episode in His life when 
He shrank from persecution 4, and remained secretly in the 
parts of Tyre and Sidon, about the coasts of Decapolis, on 
the shores of the lake, and in the towns of Caesarea Philippi, 
where the traces of His footsteps are even now indicated 
by tradition’. His success amongst these outlying popu- 
lations is proved by the unique assemblage of the crowds 
of 5000 and 4000 men besides women and children. What 
wonder then if the Church sprang up at Damascus, and 
suddenly as if without notice displayed such strength as 
to draw persecution upon it! In the same way the Words 
of life appear to have passed throughout Syria over con- 
genial soil, and Antioch became the haven whence the 
first great missionaries went out for the conversion of 
the world. Such were not only St. Paul, St. Peter, and 
St. Barnabas, but also as is not unreasonable to infer 
many of that assemblage of Christians at Rome whom 
St. Paul enumerates to our surprise in the last chapter 
of his Epistle to the Romans. Many no doubt were 
friends whom the Apostle of the Gentiles had met in 
Greece and elsewhere: but there are reasons to shew that 
some at least of them, such as Andronicus and Junias 
or Junia* and Herodion, may probably have passed along 

1 Isaac Williams, On the Study of the Gospels, 341-352. 

2 My devoted Syrian friend, Miss Helanie Baroody, told me during her stay 
in England that a village is pointed out as having been traversed by our Lord 
on His way from Caesarea Philippi to Mount Hermon. 

8 It is hardly improbable that these two eminent Christians were some of 
those whom St. Paul found at Antioch when St. Barnabas brought him there, 


the stream of commerce that flowed between Antioch and 
Rome}, and that this interconnexion between the queen 
city of the empire and the emporium of the East may 
in great measure account for the number of names well 
known to the apostle, and for the then flourishing condition 
of the Church which they adorned. 

It has been shewn in our first volume that, as is well 
known to all students of Textual Criticism, the chief 
amount of corruption is to be found in what is termed the 
Western Text; and that the corruption of the West is so 
closely akin to the corruption which is found in Syriac 
remains, that practically they are included under one head 
of classification. What is the reason of this phenomenon ? 
It is evidently derived from the close commercial alliance 
which subsisted between Syria and Italy. That is to say, 
the corruption produced in Syria made its way over into 
Italy, and there in many instances gathered fresh con- 
tributions. For there is reason to suppose, that it first 
arose in Syria. 

We have seen how the Church grew of itself there 
without regular teaching from Jerusalem in the first 
beginnings, or any regular supervision exercised by the 
Apostles. In fact, as far as the Syrian believers in Christ 
at first consisted of Gentiles, they must perforce have been 
regarded as being outside of the covenant of promise. Yet 
there must have been many who revered the stories told 
about our Lord, and felt extreme interest and delight in 
them. The story of King Abgar illustrates the history: 
but amongst those who actually heard our Lord preach 
there must have been very many, probably a majority, 
who were uneducated. They would easily learn from the 
and thus came to know intimately as fellow-workers (émionpot év rois émooréAo1s, 
ot «al mpd éuod -yeydvacw év XpictS). Most of the names in Rom. xvi are either 
Greek or Hebrew. : 

: ‘Jam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes 
Et Aimguam et mores . . . vexit.’—Juv. Sat. iii. 62-3. 

ee ———~. . 


Jews, because the Aramaic dialects spoken by Hebrews 
and Syrians did not greatly differ the one from the other. 
What difference there was, would not so much hinder the 
spread of the stories, as tend to introduce alien forms of 
speech and synonymous words, and so to hinder absolute 
accuracy from being maintained. Much time must neces- 
sarily have elapsed, before such familiarity with the genuine 
accounts of our Lord’s sayings and doings grew up, as 
would prevent mistakes being made and disseminated in 
telling or in writing. 

The Gospels were certainly not written till some thirty 
years after the Ascension. More careful examination seems 
to place them later rather than earlier. For myself, 
I should suggest that the three first were not published 
long before the year 70 A.D. at the earliest; and that 
St. Matthew’s Gospel was written at Pella during the 
siege of Jerusalem amidst Greek surroundings, and in face 
of the necessity caused by new conditions of life that 
Greek should become the ecclesiastical language. The 
Gospels would thus be the authorized versions in their 
entirety of the stories constituting the Life of our Lord ; 
and corruption must have come into existence, before the 
antidote was found in complete documents accepted and 
commissioned by the authorities in the Church. 

I must again remark with much emphasis that the 
foregoing suggestions are offered to account for what may 
now be regarded as a fact, viz., the connexion between the 
Western Text, as it is called, and Syriac remains in 
regard to corruption in the text of the Gospels and of 
the Acts of the Apostles. If that corruption arose at the 
very first spread of Christianity, before the record of our 
Lord’s Life had assumed permanent shape in the Four 
Gospels, all is easy. Such corruption, inasmuch as it beset 
the oral and written stories which were afterwards incor- 
porated in the Gospels, would creep into the authorized 


narrations, and would vitiate them till it was ultimately 
cast out towards the end of the fourth and in the suc- 
ceeding centuries. Starting from the very beginning, and 
gaining additions in the several ways described in this 
volume by Dean Burgon, it would possess such vigour 
as to impress itself on Low-Latin manuscripts and even 
on parts of the better Latin ones, perhaps on Tatian’s 
Diatessaron, on the Curetonian and Lewis manuscripts of 
the fifth century, on the Codex Bezae of the sixth; 
also on the Vatican and the Sinaitic of the fourth, on 
the Dublin Palimpsest of St. Matthew of the sixth, on the 
Codex Regius or L of the eighth, on the St. Gall MS. 
of the ninth in St. Mark, on the Codex Zacynthius of the 
eighth in St. Luke, and a few others. We on our side 

admit that the corruption is old even though the manu- - 

scripts enshrining it do not date very far back, and cannot 
always prove their ancestry. And it is in this admission 
that I venture to think there is an opening for a meeting 
of opinions which have been hitherto opposed. 

In the following treatise, the causes of corruption are 
divided into (I) such as proceeded from Accident, and 
(II) those which were Intentional. Under the former class 
we find (1) those which were involved in pure Accident, 
or (2) in what is termed Homoeoteleuton where lines or 
sentences ended with the same word or the same syllable, 
or (3) such as arose in writing from Uncial letters, or (4) in 
the confusion of vowels and diphthongs which is called 
Itacism, or (5) in Liturgical Influence. The remaining 
instances may be conveniently classed as Intentional, 
not because in all cases there was a settled determination 
to alter the text, for such if any was often of the faintest 
character, but because some sort of design was to a 
greater or less degree embedded in most of them. Such 
causes were (1) Harmonistic Influence, (2) Assimilation, 
(3) Attraction ; such instances too in their main character 

RS OD: ee o** aie as ON tk 


were (4) Omissions, (5) Transpositions, (6) Substitutions, 
(7) Additions, (8) Glosses, (9) Corruption by Heretics, 
(10) Corruption by Orthodox. 

This dissection of the mass of corruption, or as perhaps 
it may be better termed, this classification made by Dean 
Burgon of the numerous causes which are found to have 
been at work from time to time, appears to me to be most 
interesting to the inquirer into the hidden history of the 
Text of the Gospels, because by revealing the influences’ 
which have been at work it sheds light upon the entire 
controversy, and often enables the student to see clearly 
how and why certain passages around which dispute has 
gathered are really corrupt. Indeed, the vast and myste- 
rious ogre called corruption assumes shape and form under 
the acute penetration and the deft handling of the Dean, 
whose great knowledge of the subject and orderly treat- 
ment of puzzling details is still more commended by his 
interesting style of writing. As far as has been possible, 
I have let. him in the sequel, except for such clerical 
corrections as were required from time to time and have 
been much fewer than his facile pen would have made, 
speak entirely for himself. 



§ 1. 

WE hear sometimes scholars complain, and with a certain 
show of reason, that it is discreditable to us as a Church 
not to have long since put forth by authority a revised 
Greek Text of the New Testament. The chief writers of 
antiquity, say they, have been of late years re-edited by 
the aid of the best Manuscripts. Why should not the 
Scriptures enjoy the same advantage? Men who so speak 
evidently misunderstand the question. They assume that 
the case of the Scriptures and that of other ancient writings 
are similar. 

Such remonstrances are commonly followed up by state- 
ments like the following :—That the received Text is that of 
Erasmus :—that it was constructed in haste, and without 
skill:—that it is based on a very few, and those bad 
Manuscripts :—that it belongs to an age when scarcely any 
of our present critical helps were available, and when the 
Science of Textual Criticism was unknown. To listen to 
these advocates for Revision, you would almost suppose 
that it fared with the Gospel at this instant as it had fared 
with the original Copy of the Law for many years until the 
days of King Josiah’. 

Yielding to no one in my desire to see the Greek of the 

1 2 Kings xxii, 8 = 2 Chron. xxxiv. 15. 


New Testament judiciously revised, I freely avow that 
recent events have convinced me, and I suppose they have 
convinced the public also, that we have not among us the 
men to conduct such an undertaking. Better a thousand 
times in my judgement to leave things as they are, than to 
risk having the stamp of authority set upon such an unfor- 
tunate production as that which appeared on the 17th May, 
1881, and which claims at this instant to represent the 
combined learning of the Church, the chief Sects, and the 
Socinian? body: 

Now if the meaning of those who desire to see the 
commonly received text of the New Testament made 
absolutely faultless, were something of this kind :—That 
they are impatient for the collation of the copies which 
have become known to us within the last two centuries, and 
which amount already in all to upwards of three thousand : 
that they are bent on procuring that the ancient Versions 
shall be re-edited;—and would hail with delight the 
announcement that a band of scholars had combined to 
index every place of Scripture quoted by any of the 
Fathers :—if this were meant, we should all be entirely at 
one ; especially if we could further gather from the pro- 
gramme that a fixed intention was. cherished of abiding by 
the result of such an appeal to ancient evidence. But 
unfortunately something entirely different is in contem- 

Now I am bent on calling attention to certain features of 
the problem which have very generally escaped attention. 
It does not seem to be understood that the Scriptures of 
the New Testament stand on an entirely different footing 
from every other ancient writing which can be named. 
A few plain remarks ought to bring this fact, for a fact it 

1 [This name is used for want of a better. Churchmen are Unitarians as well 
as Trinitarians. The two names in combination express our Faith. We dare 
not alienate either of them. ] 


is, home to every thoughtful person. And the result will 
be that men will approach the subject with more caution,— 
with doubts and misgivings,—with a fixed determination to 
be on their guard against any form of plausible influence. 
Their prejudices they will scatter to the winds. At every 
step they will insist on proof. 

In the first place, then, let it be observed that the New 
Testament Scriptures are wholly without a parallel in 
respect of their having been so frequently multiplied from 
the very first. They are by consequence contained at this 
day in an extravagantly large number of copies [pro- 
bably, if reckoned under the six classes of Gospels, Acts 
and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse, Evan- 
gelistaries, and Apostolos, exceeding the number of four 
thousand]. There is nothing like this, or at all approaching 
to it, in the case of any profane writing that can be named?. 

And the very necessity for multiplying copies,—a neces- 
sity which has made itself felt in every age and in every 
clime,—has perforce resulted in an immense number of 
variants. Words have been inevitably dropped,—vowels 
have been inadvertently confounded by copyists more or 
less competent :—and the meaning of Scripture in countless 
places has suffered to a surprising degree in consequence. 
This first. 

But then further, the Scriptures for the very reason 
because they were known to be the Word of God became 
a mark for the shafts of Satan from the beginning. They 
were by consequence as eagerly solicited by heretical 
teachers on the one hand, as they were hotly defended by 
the orthodox on the other. Alike from friends and from 
foes therefore, they are known to have experienced injury, 
and that in the earliest age of all. Nothing of the kind 
can be predicated of any other ancient writings. This 

+ See The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Burgon and Miller), p. 21, 
note I, 

OE ———— ees 


consideration alone should suggest a severe exercise of, 
judicial impartiality, in the handling of ancient evidence 
of whatever sort. 

For I request it may be observed that I have not said— 
and I certainly do not mean—that the Scriptures them- 
selves have been permanently corrupted either by friend 
or foe. Error was fitful and uncertain, and was contradicted 
by other error: besides that it sank eventually before 
a manifold witness to the truth. Nevertheless, certain 
manuscripts belonging to a few small groups—particular 
copies of a Version—individual Fathers or Doctors of the 
Church,—these do, to the present hour, bear traces incon- 
testably of ancient mischief. 

But what goes before is not nearly all. The fourfold 
structure of the Gospel has lent itself to a certain kind of 
licentious handling—of which in other ancient writings we 
have no experience. One critical owner of a Codex con- 
sidered himself at liberty to assimilate the narratives: 
another to correct them in order to bring them into (what 
seemed to himself) greater harmony. Brevity is found to 
have been a paramount object with some, and Transposition 
to have amounted to a passion with others. Conjectural 
Criticism was evidently practised largely: and almost with 
as little felicity as when Bentley held the pen. Lastly, 
there can be no question that there was a certain school of 
Critics who considered themselves competent to improve 
the style of the HOLY GuHosT throughout. [And before the 
members of the Church had gained a familiar acquaintance 
with the words of the New Testament, blunders continually 
crept into the text of more or less heinous importance.] All 
this, which was chiefly done during the second and third 
centuries, introduces an element of difficulty in the hand- 
ling of ancient evidence which can never be safely neglected: 
and will make a thoughtful man suspicious of every various 
reading which comes in his way, especially if it is attended 


with but slender attestation. [It has been already shewn 

in the companion volume] that the names of the Codexes 
chiefly vitiated in this sort prove to be BNCDL; of the 
Versions,—the two Coptic, the Curetonian, and certain 
specimens of the Old Latin; of the Fathers,— Origen, 
Clement of Alexandria, and to some extent Eusebius. 

Add to all that goes before the peculiar subject-matter 
of the New Testament Scriptures, and it will become 
abundantly plain why they should have been liable to 
a series of assaults which make it reasonable that they 
should now at last be approached by ourselves as no other 
ancient writings are, or can be. The nature of GOD,—His 
Being and Attributes:—the history of Man’s Redemption :— 
the soul’s eternal destiny:—the mysteries.of the unseen 
world:—concerning these and every other similar high 
doctrinal subject, the sacred writings alone speak with 
a voice of absolute authority. And surely by this time 
enough has been said to explain why these Scriptures 
should have been made a battle-field during some centuries, 
and especially in the fourth; and having thus been made 
the subject of strenuous contention, that copies of them 
should exhibit to this hour traces of those many adverse 
influences. I say it for the last time,—of all such causes of 
depravation the Greek Poets, Tragedians, Philosophers, 
Historians, neither knew nor could know anything. And 
it thus plainly appears that the Textual Criticism of the 
New Testament is to be handled by ourselves in an entirely 
different spirit from that of any other book. 

§ 2. 

I wish now to investigate the causes of the corruption of 
the Text of the New Testament. I do not entitle the 
present a discussion of ‘Various Readings, because I con- 
sider that expression to be incorrect and misleading!, 

* See Traditional Text, chapter ii, § 6, p. 32. 


Freely allowing that the term ‘variae lectiones, for lack of 
a better, may be allowed to stand on the Critic’s page, 
I yet think it necessary even a second time to call attention 
to the impropriety which attends its use. Thus Codex B 
differs from the commonly received Text of Scripture 
in the Gospels alone in 7578 places; of which no less than 
2877 are instances of omission. In fact omissions constitute 
by far the larger number of what are commonly called 
‘Various Readings.’ How then can those be called ‘ various 
readings’ which are really not readings at all? How, for 
example, can that be said to be a ‘various reading’ of 
St. Mark xvi. 9-20, which consists in the circumstance that 
the last 12 verses are left out by two MSS.? Again,— 
How can it be called a ‘various reading’ of St. John xxi. 
25, to bring the Gospel abruptly to a close, as Tischendorf 
does, at v. 24? These are really nothing else but indica- 
tions either of a mutilated or else an interpolated text. 
And the question to be resolved is——On which side does 
the corruption lie? and, How did it originate ? 

Waiving this however, the term is objectionable on other 
grounds. It is to beg the whole question to assume that 
every irregularity in the text of Scripture is a ‘various 
reading.’ The very expression carries with it an assertion 
of importance; at least it implies a claim to consideration. 
Even might it be thought that, because it is termed 
a ‘various reading,’ therefore a critic is entitled to call in 
question the commonly received text. Whereas, nine 
divergences out of ten are of no manner of significance and 
are entitled to no manner of consideration, as every one 
must see at a glance who will attend to the matter ever so 
little. ‘Various readings’ in fact is a term which belongs 
of right to the criticism of the text of profane authors: 
and, like many other notions which have been imported 
from the same region into this department of inquiry, it 
only tends to confuse and perplex the judgement. 


No variety in the Text of Scripture can properly be 
called a ‘various reading, of which it may be safely declared 
that it never has been, and never will be, read. In the 
case of profane authors, where the MSS. are for the most 
part exceedingly few, almost every plausible substitution of 
one word for another, if really entitled to alteration, is 
looked upon as a various reading of the text. But in the 
Gospels, of which the copies are so numerous as has been 
said, the case is far otherwise. We are there able to 
convince ourselves in a moment that the supposed ‘ various 
reading’ is nothing else but an instance of licentiousness or 
inattention on the part of a previous scribe or scribes, and 
we can afford to neglect it accordingly’. It follows there- 
fore,—and this is the point to which I desire to bring the 
reader and to urge upon his consideration,—that the number 
of ‘various readings’ in the New Testament properly so 
called has been greatly exaggerated. They are, in reality, 
exceedingly few in number ; and it is to be expected that, 
as sound (sacred) Criticism advances, and principles are 
established, and conclusions recognized, instead of becoming 
multiplied they will become fewer and fewer, and at last 
will entirely disappear. We cannot afford to go on dis- 
puting for ever ; and what is declared by common consent 
to be untenable ought to be no longer reckoned. That 
only in short, as I venture to think, deserves the name of 
a Various Reading which comes to us so respectably 
recommended as to be entitled to our sincere consideration 
and respect ; or, better still, which is of such a kind as to 
inspire some degree of reasonable suspicion that after all it 
may prove to be the true way of exhibiting the text. 

* [Perhaps this point may be cleared by dividing readings into two classes, 
viz. (1) such as really have strong evidence for their support, and require 
examination before we can be certain that they are corrupt; and (2) those 
which afford no doubt as to their being destitute of foundation, and are only 
interesting as specimens of the modes in whee error was sometimes introduced. 
Evidently, the latter class are not ‘ various’ at all. ] 


The inquiry therefore on which we are about to engage, 
grows naturally out of the considerations which have been 
already offered. We propose to ascertain, as far as is 
practicable at the end of so many hundred years, in what 
way these many strange corruptions of the text have 
arisen. Very often we shall only have to inquire how it 
has come to pass that the text exhibits signs of perturbation 
at a certain place. Such disquisitions as those which 
follow, let it never be forgotten, have no place in reviewing 
any other text than that of the New Testament, because 
a few plain principles would suffice to solve every difficulty. 
The less usual word mistaken for the word of more frequent 
occurrence ;—clerical carelessness ;—a gloss finding its way 
from the margin into the text ;—such explanations as these 
would probably in other cases suffice to account for every 
ascertained corruption of the text. But it is far otherwise 
here, as I propose to make fully apparent by and by. 
Various disturbing influences have been at work for a great 
many years, of which secular productions know absolutely 
nothing, nor indeed can know. 

The importance of such an inquiry will become apparent 
as we proceed ; but it may be convenient that I should call 
attention to the matter briefly at the outset. It frequently 
happens that the one remaining plea of many critics for 
adopting readings of a certain kind, is the inexplicable 
nature of the phenomena which these readings exhibit. 
‘ How will you possibly account for such a reading as the 
present, (say they,) ‘if it be not authentic?’ Or they say 
nothing, but leave it to be inferred that the reading they 
adopt,—in spite of its intrinsic improbability, in spite also 
of the slender amount of evidence on which it rests,—must 
needs be accepted as true. They lose sight of the corre- 
lative difficulty :—How comes it to pass that the rest of the 
copies read the place otherwise? On all such occasions it 
is impossible to overestimate the importance of detecting 

II. Cc 


the particular cause which has brought about, or which at 
least will fully account for, this depravation. When this 
has been done, it is hardly too much to say that a case 
presents itself like as when a pasteboard mask has been 
torn away, and the ghost is discovered with a broad grin 
on his face behind it. 

The discussion on which I now enter is then on the Causes 
of the various Corruptions of the Text. [The reader shall 
be shewn with illustrations to what particular source they 
are to be severally ascribed. When representative passages 
have been thus labelled, and the causes are seen in opera- 
tion, he will be able to pierce the mystery, and all the better 
to winnow the evil from among the good. ] 

§ 3. 

When I take into my hands an ancient copy of the 
Gospels, I expect that it will exhibit sundry inaccuracies 
and imperfections: and I am never disappointed in my 
expectation. The discovery however creates no uneasiness, 
so long as the phenomena evolved are of a certain kind 
and range within easily definable limits. Thus :— 

1. Whatever belongs to peculiarities of spelling or fashions 
of writing, I can afford to disregard. For example, it is 
clearly consistent with perfect good faith, that a scribe 
should spell xpdBarrov? in several different ways: that he 
should write otrw for ofrws, or the contrary: that he should 
add or omit what grammarians call the v éeAxvotixdr. 
The questions really touched by irregularities such as these 
concern the date and country where the MS. was produced ; 
not by any means the honesty or animus of the copyist. 
The man fell into the method which was natural to him, 
or which he found prevailing around him; and that was all. 

? [I.e. generally xpdéBarrov, or else xp4Batov, or even xpéBaxroy ; seldom 
found as xp4BBarror, or spelt in the corrupt form xpaé8Baror. } 


‘Itacisms’ therefore, as they are called, of whatever kind,— 
by which is meant the interchange of such vowels and 
diphthongs as 1-e1, ai—e, n—1, n—o1—v, o—w, n—€t,—need excite 
no uneasiness. It is true that these variations may occa- 
sionally result in very considerable inconvenience: for 
it will sometimes happen that a different reading is the 
consequence. But the copyist may have done his work in 
perfect good faith for all that. It is not he who is respon- 
sible for the perplexity he occasions me, but the language 
and the imperfect customs amidst which he wrote. 

2. In like manner the reduplication of syllables, words, 
clauses, sentences, is consistent with entire sincerity of 
purpose on the part of the copyist. This inaccuracy is 
often to be deplored ; inasmuch as a reduplicated syllable 
often really affects the sense. But for the most part 
nothing worse ensues than that the page is disfigured 
with errata. 

3. So, on the other hand,—the occasional omission of 
words, whether few or many,—especially that passing from 
one line to the corresponding place in a subsequent line, 
which generally results from the proximity of a similar 
ending,—is a purely venial offence. It is an evidence of 
carelessness, but it proves nothing worse. 

4. Then further,—slight inversions, especially of ordinary 
words ; or the adoption of some more obvious and familiar 
collocation of particles in a sentence; or again, the oc- 
casional substitution of one common word for another, 
as elme for eAeye, Pdvnoay for xpdéav, and the like ;—need 
not provoke resentment. It is an indication, we are willing 
to hope, of nothing worse than slovenliness on the part 
of the writer or the group or succession of writers. 

5. I will add that besides the substitution of one word 
for another, cases frequently occur, where even the intro- 
duction into the text of one or more words which cannot 
be thought to have stood in the original autograph of the 



Evangelist, need create no offence. It is often possible 
to account for their presence in a strictly legitimate way. 

But it is high time to point out, that irregularities which 
fall under these last heads are only tolerable within narrow 
limits, and always require careful watching; for they may 
easily become excessive or even betray an animus; and 
in either case they pass at once into quite a different 
category. From cases of excusable oscitancy they de- 
generate, either into instances of inexcusable licentiousness, 
or else into cases of downright fraud. 

6. Thus, if it be observed in the case of a Codex 
(a) that entire sentences or significant clauses are habitually 
omitted :—(4) that again and again in the course of the 
same page the phraseology of the Evangelist has upon 
clear evidence been seriously tampered with: and (c) that 
interpolations here and there occur which will not admit 
of loyal interpretation:—we cannot but learn to regard 
with habitual distrust the Codex in which all these notes 
are found combined. It is as when a witness, whom we 
suspected of nothing worse than a bad memory or a random 
tongue or a lively imagination, has been at last convicted 
of deliberate suppression of parts of his evidence, misrepre- 
sentation of facts,—in fact, deliberate falsehood. 

7. But now suppose the case of a MS. in which words 
or clauses are clearly omitted with design; where ex- 
pressions are withheld which are confessedly harsh or 
critically difficult,—whole sentences or parts of them 
which have a known controversial bearing ;—Suppose fur- 
ther that the same MS. abounds in worthless paraphrase, 
and contains apocryphal additions throughout :—What are 
we to think of our guide then? There can be but one 
opinion on the subject. From habitually trusting, we 
shall entertain inveterate distrust. We have ascertained 
his character. We thought he was a faithful witness, but 
we now find from experience of his transgressions that 


we have fallen into bad company. His witness may be 
false no less than true: confidence is at an end. 

§ 4. 

It may be regarded as certain that most of the aber- 
rations discoverable in Codexes of the Sacred Text have 
arisen in the first instance from the merest inadvertency 
of the scribes. That such was the case in a vast number 
of cases is in fact demonstrable. [Inaccuracy in the ap- 
prehension of the Divine Word, which in the earliest ages 
was imperfectly understood, and ignorance of Greek in 
primitive Latin translators, were prolific sources of error. 
The influence of Lectionaries, in which Holy Scripture 
was cut up into separate Lections either with or without 
an introduction, remained with habitual hearers, and led 
them off in copying to paths which had become familiar. 
Acquaintance with ‘Harmonies’ or Diatessarons caused 
copyists insensibly to assimilate one Gospel to another. 
And doctrinal predilections, as in the case of those who 
belonged to the Origenistic school, were the source of 
lapsing into expressions which were not the verba ipsissima 
of Holy Writ. In such cases, when the inadvertency was 
genuine and was unmingled with any overt design, it is 
much to be noted that the error seldom propagated itself 
extensively. | 

But next, well-meant endeavours must have been made 
at a very early period ‘to rectify’ (dvopAotv) the text thus un- 
intentionally corrupted ; and so, what began in inadvertence 
is sometimes found in the end to exhibit traces of design, 
and often becomes in a high degree perplexing. Thus, 
to cite a favourite example, it is clear to me that in the 
earliest age of all (A.D. 100?) some copyist of St. Luke ii. 14 
(call him X) inadvertently omitted the second EN in the 
Angelic Hymn. Now if the persons (call them Y and Z) 
whose business it became in turn to reproduce the early 


copy thus inadvertently depraved, had but been content 
both of them to transcribe exactly what they saw before 
them, the error of their immediate predecessor (X) must 
infallibly have speedily been detected, remedied, and for- 
gotten,—simply because, as every one must have seen 
as well as Y and Z, it was impossible to translate the 
sentence which results,—éal yijs elpjvn dvOpdrois eddoxia. 
Reference would have been made to any other copy of 
the third Gospel, and together with the omitted preposition 
(év) sense would have been restored to the passage. But 
unhappily one of the two supposed Copyists being a learned 
grammarian who had no other copy at hand to refer to, 
undertook, good man that he was, proprio Marte to force 
a meaning into the manifestly corrupted text of the copy 
before him: and he did it by affixing to eddoxia the sign 
of the genitive case (s). Unhappy effort of misplaced 
skill! That copy [or those copies] became the immediate 
progenitor [or progenitors] of a large family,—from which 
all the Latin copies are descended; whereby it comes to 
pass that Latin Christendom sings the Hymn ‘Gloria in 
excelsis’ incorrectly to the present hour, and may possibly 
sing it incorrectly to the end of time. The error committed 
by that same venerable Copyist survives in the four oldest 
copies of the passage extant, B* and N*, A and D,— 
though happily in no others,—in the Old Latin, Vulgate, 
and Gothic, alone of Versions; in Irenaeus and Origen 
(who contradict themselves), and in the Latin Fathers. 
All the Greek authorities, with the few exceptions just 
recorded, of which A and D are the only consistent 
witnesses, unite in condemning the evident blunder’. 

* I am inclined to believe that in the age immediately succeeding that of the 
Apostles, some person or persons of great influence and authority executed 
a Revision of the N. T. and gave the world the result of such labours in 
a ‘corrected Text.’ The guiding principle seems to have been to seek to 
abridge the Text, to lop off whatever seemed redundant, or which might in any 
way be spared, and to eliminate from one Gospel whatever expressions occurred 


I ohce hoped that it might be possible to refer all the 
Corruptions of the Text of Scripture to ordinary causes: 
as, careless transcription,—divers accidents,—misplaced 
critical assiduity,—doctrinal animus,—small acts of un- 
pardonable licence. 

But increased attention and enlarged acquaintance with 
the subject, have convinced me that by far the larger 
number of the omissions of such Codexes as NBLD must 
needs be due to quite a different cause. These MSS. omit 
so many words, phrases, sentences, verses of Scripture,— 
that it is altogether incredible that the proximity of 
like endings can have much to do with the matter. 
Inadvertency may be made to bear the blame of some 
omissions : it cannot bear the blame of shrewd and signi- 
ficant omissions of clauses, which invariably leave the 
sense complete. A systematic and perpetual mutilation 
of the inspired Text must needs be the result of design, 
not of accident 1. 

[It will be seen therefore that the causes of the Cor- 
ruptions of the Text class themselves under two main 
heads, viz. (I.) Those which arose from Inadvertency, and 
(II.) Those which took their origin in Design. | 

elsewhere in another Gospel, Clauses which slightly obscured the speaker’s 
meaning ; or which seemed to hang loose at the end of a sentence; or which 
introduced a consideration of difficulty :—words which interfered with the easy 
flow of a sentence :—every thing of this kind such a personage seems to have held 
himself free to discard. But what is more serious, passages which occasioned 
some difficulty, as the Zericope de adultera; physical perplexity, as the troubling 
of the water; spiritual revulsion, as the agony in the garden :—all these the re- 
viser or revisers seem to have judged it safest simply to eliminate, It is difficult 
to understand how any persons in their senses could have so acted by the sacred 
deposit ; but it does not seem improbable that at some very remote period there 
were found some who did act in some such way. Let it be observed, however, 
that unlike some critics I do not base my real argument upon what appears 
to me to be a not unlikely supposition, 

+ [Unless it be referred to the two converging streams of corruption, as 
described in The Traditional Text. ] 





[IT often happens that more causes than one are com- 
bined in the origin of the corruption in any one passage. 
In the following history of a blunder and of the fatal 
consequences that ensued upon it, only the first step was 
accidental. But much instruction may be derived from the 
initial blunder, and though the later stages in the history 
come under another head, they nevertheless illustrate the 
effects of early accident, besides throwing light upon parts 
of the discussion which are yet to come.] 

§ 1. 

We are sometimes able to trace the origin and progress 
of accidental depravations of the text: and the study is as 
instructive as it is interesting. Let me invite attention to 
what is found in St. John x. 29; where,—instead of, ‘My 
Father, who hath given them [viz. My sheep] to Me, is 
greater than all,—Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, are for 
reading, ‘That thing which My (or the) Father hath given 
to Me is greater (i.e. is a greater thing) than all.’ A vastly 
different proposition, truly ; and, whatever it may mean, 
wholly inadmissible here, as the context proves. It has 
been the result of sheer accident moreover,—as I proceed 
to explain. 

St. John certainly wrote the familiar words,—é zariip pov 


ds b€dmxé por, pelCwy mdvtwy éorl. But, with the licentious- 
ness [or inaccuracy] which prevailed in the earliest age, 
some remote copyist is found to have substituted for és 
dédwxe, its grammatical equivalent 6 dedwxés. And this 
proved fatal; for it was only necessary that another scribe 
should substitute pef(ov for pelfwy (after the example of 
such places as St. Matt. xii. 6, 41, 42, &c.), and thus the 
door had been opened to at least four distinct deflections 
from the evangelical verity,—which straightway found 
their way into manuscripts :—(1) 0 dedaxws . . . erCov—of 
which reading at this day D is the sole representative: 
(2) os dedmxe .. . wecCov—which survives only in AX: 
(3) 0 dedmxe . . . petfov—which is only found in NL: 
(4) 0 dedmKxe . » . pevCov—which is the peculiar property 
of B. The 1st and 2nd of these sufficiently represent the 
Evangelist’s meaning, though neither of them is what he 
actually wrote; but the 3rd is untranslatable: while the 4th . 
is nothing else but a desperate attempt to force a meaning 
into the 3rd, by writing peov for perfwv; treating o not 
as the article but as the neuter of the relative és. 

This last exhibition of the text, which in fact scarcely 
yields an intelligible meaning and rests upon the minimum 
of manuscript evidence, would long since have been for- 
gotten, but that, calamitously for the Western Church, its 
Version of the New Testament Scriptures was executed 
from MSS. of the same vicious type as Cod. B*. Accord- 
ingly, all the Latin copies, and therefore all the Latin 
Fathers ”, translate,—‘ Pater [meus] quod dedit mihi, majus 
omnibus est *.’ The Westerns resolutely extracted a mean- 
ing from whatever they presumed to be genuine Scripture : 

? See the passages quoted in Scrivener’s Introduction, II. 270-2, 4th ed. 

? Tertull. (Prax. c. 22): Ambr. (ii. 576, 607, 689 dzs): Hilary (930 47s, 
108g): Jerome (v. 208): Augustin (iii?, 615): Maximinus, an Arian bishop 
(ap. Aug. viii. 651). 

’ Pater (ov Pater meus) quod dedit mihi (07 mihi dedit), majus omnibus est 
(ov majus est omnibus: or omnibus majus est). 


and one can but admire the piety which insists on finding 
sound Divinity in what proves after all to be nothing else 
but a sorry blunder. What, asks Augustine, was ‘the 
thing, greater than all,’ which the Father gave to the SON? 
To be the Word of the Father (he answers), His only- 
begotten Son and the brightness of His glory’. The Greeks 
knew better. Basil?, Chrysostom’, Cyril on nine occasions *, 
Theodoret®—as many as quote the place — invariably 
exhibit the textus recepius ds . . . welCwv, which is obviously 
the true reading and may on no account suffer molestation. 

‘But, —I shall perhaps be asked,—‘ although Patristic and 
manuscript evidence are wanting for the reading 6 d<dwxé 
por... meCwy,—is it not a significant circumstance that 
three translations of such high antiquity as the Latin, the 
Bohairic, and the Gothic, should concur in supporting it ? 
and does it not inspire extraordinary confidence in B to 
find that B alone of MSS. agrees with them?’ To which 
I answer,—It makes me, on the contrary, more and more 
distrustful of the Latin, the Bohairic and the Gothic 
versions to find them exclusively siding with Cod. B on 
such an occasion as the present. It is obviously not more 
‘significant’ that the Latin, the Bohairic, and the Gothic, 
should here conspire with—than that the Syriac, the Sahidic, 
and the Ethiopic, should here combine against B. On the 
other hand, how utterly insignificant is the testimony of B 
when opposed to all the uncials, all the cursives, and all the 
Greek fathers who quote the place. So far from inspiring 
me with confidence in B, the present indication of the fatal 
sympathy of that Codex with the corrupt copies from which 
confessedly many of the Old Latin were executed, confirms 

* iii?.615. He begins,‘ Quid dedit Filio Pater majus omnibus? Ut tpsé ille 
esset unigenitus Filius,’ 

: i. 236. ‘ bs 8 viii. 363 dzs. 
wee 188: ii. 567: iii, 792: iv. 666 (ed. Pusey): v'. 326, 577, 578: ap. Mai 
li. 13: iii. 336. 

® v. 1065 (= Dial Maced ag, Athanas. ii. 55 5). 


me in my habitual distrust of it. About the true reading 
of St. John x. 29, there really exists no manner of doubt. 
As for the ‘old uncials’ they are (as usual) hopelessly at 
variance on the subject. In an easy sentence of only 
g words,—which however Tischendorf exhibits in conformity 
with no known Codex, while Tregelles and Alford blindly 
follow Cod. B,—they have contrived to invent five ‘various 
readings,’ as may be seen at foot!. Shall we wonder more 
at the badness of the Codexes to which we are just now 
invited to pin our faith; or at the infatuation of our guides? 

§ 2. 

I do not find that sufficient attention has been paid to 
grave disturbances of the Text which have resulted from 
a slight clerical error. While we are enumerating the 
various causes of Textual depravity, we may not fail to 
specify this. Once trace a serious Textual disturbance 
back to (what for convenience may be called) a ‘clerical 
error,’ and you are supplied with an effectual answer to 
a form of inquiry which else is sometimes very perplexing : 
viz. If the true meaning of this passage be what you sup- 
pose, for what conceivable reason should the scribe have 
misrepresented it in this strange way,—made nonsense, in 
short, of the place? ... I will further remark, that it is 
always interesting, sometimes instructive, after detecting 
the remote origin of an ancient blunder, to note what has 
been its subsequent history and progress. 

Some specimens of the thing referred to I have already 
given in another place. The reader is invited to acquaint 
himself with the strange process by which the ‘276 souls’ 
who suffered shipwreck with St. Paul (Acts xxvii. 37), 
have since dwindled down to ‘about 76”.—He is further 

1 Viz. + pov ABD: — pov S | os A: o BND | deduney BNA: Sedwxus | perfor 

ND: pecfoyv AB | pel. navtov cor A: mavrov pet. eorw BND. 
? The Revision Revised, p. 51-3. 


requested to note how ‘a certain man’ who in the time of 
St. Paul bore the name of ‘ Justus’ (Acts xviii. 7), has been 
since transformed into ‘ 7ztus, ‘Titus Fustus; and even 
‘ Titius Fustus'’—But for a far sadder travestie of sacred 
words, the reader is referred to what has happened in 
St. Matt. xi. 23 and St. Luke x. 15,—where our SAVIOUR 
is made to ask an unmeaning question—instead of being 
permitted to announce a solemn fact—concerning Caper- 
naum *.—The newly-discovered ancient name of the Island 
of Malta, Welitene*, (for which geographers are indebted to 
the adventurous spirit of Westcott and Hort), may also be 
profitably considered in connexion with what is to be the 
subject of the present chapter. And now to break up fresh 

Attention is therefore invited to a case of attraction in 
Acts xx. 24. It is but the change of a single letter (AdyoT 
for AdyoN), yet has that minute deflection from the truth led 
to a complete mangling of the most affecting perhaps of 
St. Paul’s utterances. I refer to the famous words add’ 
ovdevos Adyov ToLodpat, ode Exw THY Yuxyv pov Tiutay euavTe, 
@s TeAELGoat TOV Spcmoy pov peTa xapas: excellently, because 
idiomatically, rendered by our Translators of 1611,—‘ But 
none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear 
unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy.’ 

For ovderds ASTON, (the accusative after movodpar), some 
one having substituted otdevds ACTOY,—a reading which 
survives to this hour in B and C*,—it became necessary to 
find something else for the verb to govern. Tv Wuxi was 
at hand, but ovdé éyw stood in the way. Ovdse éxyw must 
therefore go®; and go it did,—as B, C, and N remain to 

? The Revision Revised, p. 53-4. ? Thid. p. 54-6. 3 Ibid. p. 177-8. 

* Also in Ammonius the presbyter, A.D. 458—see Cramer’s Cat. p. 334-5, 
last line. Aéryov is read besides in the cursives Act. 36, 96, 105. 

* I look for an approving word from learned Dr. Field, who wrote in 1875— 
‘ The real obstacle to our acquiescing in the reading of the T. R. is, that if the 
words ob5¢ €xw had once formed a part of the original text, there is no possibility 


attest. Tiufay should have gone also, if the sentence was 
to be made translatable ; but rizéav was left behind’. The 
authors of ancient embroilments of the text were sad 
bunglers, In the meantime, Cod. & inadvertently retained 
St. Luke’s word, AOTON ; and because WN here follows B in 
every other respect, it exhibits a text which is simply 

Now the second clause of the sentence, viz. the words 
ovde €xw THY Wuxnv pov Tiutay eéuavT@, May on No account be 
surrendered. It is indeed beyond the reach of suspicion, 
being found in Codd. A, D, E, H, L, P, 13, 31,—in fact in 
every known copy of the Acts, except the discordant NBC. 
The clause in question is further witnessed to by the 
Vulgate*,—by the Harkleian*+—by Basil®—by Chrysos- 
tom °,—by Cyril",—by Euthalius *,—and by the interpolator 

of accounting for the subsequent omission of them.’ The same remark, but con- 
siderably toned down, is found in his delightful Otium Norvicense, P. iii, p. 84. 

? Band C read—dad’ ovddevds Adyou To.odpa THY Puy Tipiay évavT@: which 
is exactly what Lucifer Calarit. represents,—‘ sed pro nihilo aestimo animam 
meam caram esse mtht’ (Galland. vi. 241). 

2 N reads—dAd’ obSevds Adyov moodpar THY Wux}v Tipiay épavT@ ws TeAerwow 
Tov Spdpov pov, 

3 ¢ Sed nihil horum (rovrov is found in many Greek Codd.] vereor, nec facio 
animam meam pretiosiorem quam me. So, the Cod. Amiat. It is evident 
then that when Ambrose (ii. 1040) writes ‘mec facio animam meam cariorem 
miht,’ he is quoting the latter of these two clauses. Augustine (iii'. 516), when 
he cites the place thus, ‘Von enim facio animam meam pretiosiorem quam me’ ; 
and elsewhere (iv. 268) ‘pretiosam mihi’; also Origen (znterp. iv. 628 c), ‘ sed 
ego non facio cariorem animam meam mthi’; and even the Coptic, ‘ sed anima 
mea, dico, non est pretiosa mihi in aliqguo verbo’ :—these evidently summarize 
the place, by making a sentence out of what survives of the second clause. The 
Latin of D exhibits ‘ Sed nihil horum cura est mihi: neque habeo ipsam animam 
caram mihi, 

* Dr. Field says that it may be thus Graecized—dAd’ oddéva Adyor Torodpat, 
ovdée AcAdyoral por YuxXH pov Tt Tipuor. 

5 ii, 296 e,—exactly as the T. R. 

° Exactly as the T. R., except that he writes riv YuvxHv without pov (ix. 332). 
So again, further on (334 b), ob« éxw ripiay thy euavtod Yvxqv. This latter 
place is quoted in Cramer’s Cat. 334. 

7 Ap. Mai ii. 336 ee Kal THs (whs karadppovely iwtp Tod Tehedoa Tov 
Spdpor, ov5e tiv Yuxhv ey TworetoOa Tipiav éavTg. 

8 Adyov Exw, obd molcodpar Ty Yuxiy Tislay épyavTg, Wore K.7.A. (ap. 
Galland. x. 222). 


of Ignatius!, What are we to think of our guides (Tischen- 
dorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers) who 
have nevertheless surrendered the Traditional Text and 
presented us instead with what Dr. Field,—who is indeed 
a Master in Israel,—describes as the impossible 4A)’ ovdevds 
Adyov ToLodpat THY Wuyi Tyslay euavre ?? 

The words of the last-named eminent scholar on the 
reading just cited are so valuable in themselves, and are 
observed to be so often in point, that they shall find place 
here :—‘ Modern Critics, he says, ‘in deference to the 
authority of the older MSS., and to certain critical canons 
which prescribe that preference should be given to the 
shorter and more difficult reading over the longer and 
easier one, have decided that the T. R. in this passage 
is to be replaced by that which is contained in those 
older MSS. 

‘In regard to the difficulty of this reading, that term 
seems hardly applicable to the present case. A difficult 
reading is one which presents something apparently incon- 
gruous in the sense, or anomalous in the construction, which 
an ignorant or half-learned copyist would endeavour, by 
the use of such critical faculty as he possessed, to remove; 
but which a true critic is able, by probable explanation, 
and a comparison of similar cases, to defend against all 
such fancied improvements. In the reading before us, dAX’ 
ovdevos Adyov ToLodpar THy Woxiv Tyslav éuavTa, it is the con- 
struction, and not the sense, which is in question; and this 
is not simply difficult, but impossible. There is really no 
way of getting over it; it baffles novices and experts alike *.’ 
When will men believe that a reading vouched for by only 

* GdX’ odbdevds Adyov movodpa THY Seva, ode éxw Thy Yuxiv tipiay éyavTg. 
Epist. ad Tars, c. 1 (Dressel, p. 255). 

? The whole of Dr. Field’s learned annotation deserves to be carefully read 
and pondered. I speak of it especially in the shape in which it originally 
appeared, viz. in 1875. 

$ Ibid. p, 2 and 3. 

ST. LUKE II. 14. 31 

BNC is safe to be a fabrication!? But at least when Copies 
and Fathers combine, as here they do, against those three 
copies, what can justify critics in upholding a text which 
carries on its face its own condemnation? 

§ 3. 

We now come to the inattention of those long-since- 
forgotten Ist or IInd century scribes who, beguiled by the 
similarity of the letters €N and AN (in the expression €N AN- 
Opwrois evdoxta, St. Luke ii. 14), left out the preposition. 
An unintelligible clause was the consequence, as has been 
explained above (p. 21): which some one next sought to 
remedy by adding to evdédoxia the sign of the genitive (C). 
Thus the Old Latin translations were made. 

That this is the true history of a blunder which the latest 
Editors of the New Testament have mistaken for genuine 
Gospel, is I submit certain. Most Latin copies (except 14 *) 
exhibit ‘pax hominibus bonae voluntatis,’ as well as many 
Latin Fathers*. On the other hand, the preposition €N is 

1 Surprising it is how largely the text of this place has suffered at the hands 
of Copyists and Translators. In A and D, the words ro.odyar and éxw have 
been made to change places. The latter Codex introduces po: after éxw,—for 
évavT@ writes ¢uavrod,—and exhibits rod reAec@oar without ws. C writes ds 7d 
TeAawoa. NB alone of Codexes present us with TreAewow for reAeeoa, and 
are followed by Westcott and Hort alone of Editors. The Peshitto (‘ sed mihi 
nthili aestimatur anima mea’), the Sahidic (‘sed non facio animam meam in 
ullé re’), and the Aethiopic (‘ sed non reputo animam meam nihil quidquam’), 
get rid of tipiay as well as of od5¢ €xw. So much diversity of text, and in 
such primitive witnesses, while it points to a remote period as the date of the 
blunder to which attention is called in the text, testifies eloquently to the utter 
perplexity which that blunder occasioned from the first. 

2 Another example of the same phenomenon, (viz. the absorption of EN by 
the first syllable of AN @pwzracs) is to be seen in Acts iv. 12,—-where however 
the error has led to no mischievous results. 7 

* For those which insert 27 (14), and those which reject it (25), see Words- 
worth’s edition of the Vulgate on this passage. 

# Of Fathers:—Ambrose i. 1298—Hieronymus i. 4487, 693, 876: ii. 213: 
iv. 34,92: v. 147: vi. 638: vii. 241, 281, 283,—Augustine 34 times,—Optatus 
(Galland. v. 472, 487),—Gaudentius Brix. (af. Sabat.),—-Chromatius Ag. (Gall. 
viii. 337),—Orosius (zd. ix. 134), Marius M. (2d. viii. 672), Maximus Taur., (70. 
ix. 355),—Sedulius (2b, 575),—Leo M. (af. Sabat.),—Mamertus .Claudianus 


retained in every known Greek copy of St. Luke without 
exception, while the reading eddoxlas is absolutely limited 
to the four uncials ABND. The witness of antiquity on 
this head is thus overwhelming and decisive. 

§ 4. 

In other cases the source, the very progress of a blunder, 
—is discoverable. Thus whereas St. Mark (in xv. 6) cer- 
tainly wrote é€va dé€op.0v, ONTTEP irodvto, the scribe of A, 
who evidently derived his text from an earlier copy in 
uncial letters is found to have divided the Evangelist’s 
syllables wrongly, and to exhibit in this place ON .TIE- 
PHTOUNTO. The consequence might have been predicted. 
NAB transform this into ON TTAPHTOYNTO: which ac- 
cordingly is the reading adopted by Tischendorf and by 
Westcott and Hort. 

Whenever in fact the final syllable of one word can 
possibly be mistaken for the first syllable of the next, or 
vice versa, it is safe sooner or later to have misled some- 
body. Thus, we are not at all surprised to find St. Mark’s 
& mapéAaBov (vii. 4) transformed into G@mep éAaBov, but 
only by B. 

[Another startling instance of the same phenomenon is 
supplied by the substitution in St. Mark vi. 22 of ris 
Ovyatpos abrod “Hpwoiddos for rhs Ovyatpds avrns tis “‘Hpwoid- 
dos. Here a first copyist left out ris as being a repetition 
of the last syllable of atirjs, and afterwards a second at- 
tempted to improve the Greek by putting the masculine 
pronoun for the feminine (AYTOY for AYTHC). The con- 
sequence was hardly to have been foreseen. | 

Strange to say it results in the following monstrous 
figment :—that the fruit of Herod’s incestuous connexion 
with Herodias had been a daughter, who was also named 
(Gall. x. 431),—Vigilius Taps. (af. Sabat.),—Zacchaeus (Gall. ix. 241),— 

Caesarius Arel, (2. xi. 11),—ps.-Ambros. ii. 394, 396, —Hormisdas P. (Conc. 
iv. 1494, 1496),—52 Bps. at 8th Council of Toledo (Cone. vi. 395), &c., &c. 


Herodias; and that she,—the King’s own daughter,—was 
the immodest one! who came in and danced before him, 
‘his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee,’ as 
they sat at the birthday banquet. Probability, natural 
feeling, the obvious requirements of the narrative, History 
itself—, for Josephus expressly informs us that ‘ Salome, 
not ‘ Herodias,’ was the name of Herodias’ daughter *,—all 
reclaim loudly against such a perversion of the truth, But 
what ought to be in itself conclusive, what in fact settles the 
question, is the testimony of the MSS.,—of which only 
seven (NBDLA with two cursive copies) can be found to 
exhibit this strange mistake. Accordingly the reading 
AYTOY is rejected by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, 
Tischendorf and Alford. It has nevertheless found favour 
with Dr. Hort; and it has even been thrust into the margin 
of the revised Text of our Authorized Version, as a reading 
having some probability. 

This is indeed an instructive instance of the effect of 
accidental errors—another proof that NBDL cannot be 
trusted. ‘ 

Sufficiently obvious are the steps whereby the present 
erroneous reading was brought to perfection. The im- 
mediate proximity in MSS. of the selfsame combination 
of letters is observed invariably to result in a various 
reading. AYTHCTHC was safe to part with its second 
THC on the first opportunity, and the definitive article 
(ris) once lost, the substitution of AYTOY for AYTHC 
is just such a mistake as a copyist with ill-directed in- 
telligence would be sure to fall into if he were bestowing 
sufficient attention on the subject to be aware that the 
person spoken of in verses 20 and 21 is Herod the King. 

{This recurrence of identical or similar syllables near 
together was a frequent source of error. Copying has 

1 See Wetstein on this place. 2 Antiqq. i. 99, xviii. 5. 4. 
ii, D 


- always a tendency to become mechanical: and when the 
mind of the copyist sank to sleep in his monotonous toil, 
as well as if it became too active, the sacred Text suffered 
more or less, and so even a trifling mistake might be the 
seed of serious depravation. ] 

§ 5. 

Another interesting and instructive instance of error 
originating in sheer accident, is supplied by the reading 
in certain MSS. of St. Mark viii. 1. That the Evangelist 
wrote sau7dAdov 6xAov ‘the multitude being very great, 
is certain. This is the reading of all the uncials but eight, 
of all the cursives but fifteen. But instead of this, it has 
been proposed that we should read, ‘when there was 
again a great multitude,’ the plain fact being that some 
ancient scribe mistook, as he easily might, the less usual 
compound word for what was to himself a far more 
familiar expression: i.e. he mistook ITAMIOAAOY for 

This blunder must date from the second century, for 
‘iterum’ is met with in the Old Latin as well as in the 
Vulgate, the Gothic, the Bohairic, and some other versions. 
On the other hand, it is against ‘every true principle of 
Textual Criticism’ (as Dr. Tregelles would say), that the 
more difficult expression should be abandoned for the 
easier, when forty-nine out of every fifty MSS. are ob- 
served to uphold it; when the oldest version of all, the 
Syriac, is on the same side; when the source of the mistake 
is patent ; and when the rarer word is observed to be:in 
St. Mark’s peculiar manner. There could be in fact no 
hesitation on this subject, if the opposition had not been 
headed by those notorious false witnesses NBDL, which 
it is just now the fashion to uphold at all hazards. They 
happen to be supported on this occasion by GMNA and 


fifteen cursives: while two other cursives look both ways 
and exhibit maAw tap7ddAov. 

In St. Mark vii. 14, maAw was similarly misread by some 
copyists for wavta, and has been preserved by NBDLA 
(TIAAIN for TIANTA) against thirteen uncials, all the 
cursives, the Peshitto and Armenian. ! 

So again in St. John xiii. 37. A reads dtvacat po by 
an evident slip of the pen for dtvapyai co. . And in xix. 31 
peyaAH H Hyepa has become peydAn jyepa in NAET' and 
some cursive copies. 


No one who finds the syllable OI recurring six times 
over in about as many words,—e. g. kal éyévero, ws anfAOov 
... OL ayyeAOI, cal OL GvOpwxrOl OL wOlpeves etrov,—is 
surprised to learn that MSS. of a certain type exhibit 
serious perturbation in that place. Accordingly, BL= 
leave out the words kal of dv@pwro ; and in that mutilated 
form the modern critical editors are contented to exhibit 
St. Luke ii. 15. One would have supposed that Tischen- 
dorf’s eyes would have been opened when he noticed that 
in his own Codex (&) one word more (ot) is dropped,— 
whereby nonsense is made of the passage (viz. of dyyedou 
moméves). Self-evident it is that a line with a ‘like ending’ 
has been omitted by the copyist of some very early codex 
of St. Luke’s Gospel ; which either read,— 

[KAI Ol ANOI O1]$ or else J[KAI O1 ANOI] 

Another such place is found in St. John vi. 11. The 


Evangelist certainly described the act of our SAVIOUR ona 
famous occasion in the well-known words,—xal eixapiotioas 

tos [wabnrais, 
ou d€ pabnrat 

Tots | avaxewpevors. 

The one sufficient proof that St. John did so write, being 
the testimony of the MSS. Moreover, we are expressly 
assured by St. Matthew (xiv. 19), St. Mark (vi. 41), and 
St. Luke (ix. 16), that our SAVIOUR’S act was performed 
in this way. It is clear however that some scribe has 
suffered his eye to wander from rors in 1. 2 to rors in 1. 4,— 
whereby St. John is made to say that our SAVIOUR himself 
distributed to the 5000. The blunder is a very ancient 
one; for it has crept into the Syriac, Bohairic, and Gothic 
versions, besides many copies of the Old Latin; and has 
established itself in the Vulgate. Moreover some good 
Fathers (beginning with Origen) so quote the place. But 
such evidence is unavailing to support NABLII, the early 
reading of 8 being also contradicted by the fourth hand in 
the seventh century against the great cloud of witnesses, — 
beginning with D and including twelve other uncials, beside 
the body of the cursives, the Ethiopic and two copies of 
the Old Latin, as well as Cyril Alex. 

Indeed, there does not exist a source of error which has 
proved more fatal to the transcribers of MSS. than the 
proximity of identical, or nearly identical, combinations 
of letters. And because these are generally met with 
in the final syllables of words, the error referred to is 
familiarly known by a Greek name which denotes ‘like- 
ness of ending’ (Homoeoteleuton). The eye of a scribe 
on reverting from his copy to the original before him is 
of necessity apt sometimes to alight on the same word, 
or what looks like the same word, a little lower down. 


The consequence is obvious. All that should have come 
in between gets omitted, or sometimes duplicated. 

It is obvious, that however inconvenient it may prove to 
find oneself in this way defrauded of five, ten, twenty, per- 
haps thirty words, no very serious consequence for the most 
part ensues. Nevertheless, the result is often sheer non- 
sense. When this is the case, it is loyally admitted by all. 
A single example may stand for a hundred. [In St. John vi. 
55, that most careless of careless transcripts, the Sinaitic &, 
omits on a most sacred subject seven words, and the 
result hardly admits of being characterized. Let the 
reader judge for himself. The passage stands thus :— 
i yap cdp& pov adnPas éott BpGors, Kat TO alud pou GAnOGs éort 
ndows. The transcriber of & by a very easy mistake let 
his eye pass from one ad7n@és to another, and character- 
istically enough the various correctors allowed the error 
to remain till it was removed in the seventh century, though 
the error issued in nothing less than,‘ My Flesh is drink 
indeed.’ Could that MS. have undergone the test of fre- 
quent use ?| 

But it requires very little familiarity with the subject 
to be aware that occasions must inevitably be even of 
frequent occurrence when the result is calamitous, and even 
perplexing, in the extreme. The writings of Apostles 
and Evangelists, the Discourses of our Divine LORD Him- 
self, abound in short formulae ; and the intervening matter 
on such occasions is constantly an integral sentence, which 
occasionally may be discovered from its context without 
evident injury to the general meaning of the place. Thus 
[ver. 14 in St. Matt. xxiii. was omitted in an early age, 
owing to the recurrence of oval jpiv at the beginning, by 
some copyists, and the error was repeated in the Old 
Latin versions. It passed to Egypt, as some of the 
Bohairic copies, the Sahidic, and Origen testify. The 
Vulgate is not quite consistent: and of course NBDLZ, 

a ee btn 


a concord of bad witnesses especially in St. Matthew, 
follow suit, in company with the Armenian, the Lewis, and 
five or more cursives, enough to make the more emphatic 
the condemnation by the main body of them. Besides the 
verdict of the cursives, thirteen uncials (as against five) 
including ® and &, the Peshitto, Harkleian, Ethiopic, 
Arabian, some MSS. of the Vulgate, with Origen (iii. 838 
(only in Lat.)); Chrysostom (vii. 707 (d¢s); ix. 755); Opus 
Imperf. 185 (d¢s); 186 (42s); John Damascene (ii. 517); 
Theophylact (i. 124); Hilary (89; 725); Jerome (iv. 276; 
v. 523; vi. 138; vii. 185)]. 

Worst of all, it will sometimes of necessity happen 
that such an omission took place at an exceedingly remote 
period; (for there have been careless scribes in every 
age :) and in consequence the error is pretty sure to have 
propagated itself widely. It is observed to exist (suppose) 
in several of the known copies ; and if,—as very often is 
the case,—it is discoverable in two or more of the ‘old 
uncials,’ all hope of its easy extirpation is atan end. Instead 
of being loyally recognized as a blunder,—which it clearly 
is,—it is forthwith charged upon the Apostle or Evangelist 
as the case may be. In other words, it is taken for granted 
that the clause in dispute can have had no place in the 
sacred autograph. It is henceforth treated as an un- 
authorized accretion to the text. Quite idle henceforth 
becomes the appeal to the ninety-nine copies out of a 
hundred which contain the missing words. I proceed to 
give an instance of my meaning. 

Our SAVIOUR, having declared (St. Matt. xix. 9) that 
whosoever putteth away his wife ef pa él mopveia, xai 
yapnon GdAnv, porxGrau',—adds xai 6 dmoAedvpévyy yapnoas 
potxatat. Those five words are not found in Codd. NDLS, 
nor in several copies of the Old Latin nor in some copies 
of the Bohairic, and the Sahidic. Tischendorf and Tregelles 
accordingly reject them. 


And yet it is perfectly certain that the words are 
genuine. Those thirty-one letters probably formed three 
lines in the oldest copies of all. Hence they are observed to 
exist in the Syriac (Peshitto, Harkleian and Jerusalem), the 
Vulgate, some copies of the Old Latin, the Armenian, and 
the Ethiopic, besides at least seventeen uncials (including 
B®), and the vast majority of the cursives. So that there 
can be no question of the genuineness of the clause. 

A somewhat graver instance of omission resulting from 
precisely the same cause meets us a little further on in 
the same Gospel. The threefold recurrence of twy in the 
expression TON yixloy TON mnrdvTWN (St. Luke xvi. 
21), has (naturally enough) resulted in the dropping of the 
words Wixiwy Tov out of some copies. Unhappily the sense 
is not destroyed by the omission. We are not surprised 
therefore to discover that the words are wanting in 
—NBL: or to find that NBL are supported here by 
copies of the Old Latin, and (as usual) by the Egyptian 
versions, nor by Clemens Alex.! and the author of the 
Dialogus *. Jerome, on the other hand, condemns the Latin 
reading, and the Syriac Versions are observed to approve 
of Jerome’s verdict, as well as the Gothic. But what 
settles the question is the fact that every known Greek 
MS., except those three, witnesses against the omission: 
besides Ambrose*, Jerome’, Eusebius® Alex., Gregory ° 
Naz., Asterius’, Basil 8, Ephraim ® Syr., Chrysostom !°, and 
Cyril”! of Alexandria. Perplexing it is notwithstanding 
to discover, and distressing to have to record, that all the 
recent Editors of the Gospels are more or less agreed in 

wea o ae 2 Ap. Orig. i. 827. 

* Ambrose i. 659, 1473, 1491 :—places which shew how insecure would be 
an inference drawn from i. 543 and 665. 

* Hieron. v. 966; vi. 969. 5 Ap. Mai ii. 516, 520. = 1, 390. 

© P.. 12. ® ii. 169. ‘ 9 ii, 142. 

'° i. 715, 720; ii. 662 (625), 764; vii. 779. 

My, 149 (luc. text, 524). 


abolishing ‘the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s 
table.’ ’ 

[The foregoing instances afford specimens of the influence 
of accidental causes upon the transmission from age to age 
of the Text of the Gospels. Before the sense of the exact 
expressions of the Written Word was impressed upon the 
mind of the Church,—when the Canon was not definitely 
acknowledged, and the halo of antiquity had not yet 
gathered round writings which had been recently com- 
posed,—severe accuracy was not to be expected. Errors 
would be sure to arise, especially from accident, and early 
ancestors would be certain to have a numerous progeny ; 
besides that evil would increase, and slight deviations 
would give rise in the course of natural development to 
serious and perplexing corruptions. 

In the next chapter, other kinds of accidental causes will 
come under consideration. ] 




§ 1. 

CORRUPT readings have occasionally resulted from the 
ancient practice of writing Scripture in the uncial character, 
without accents, punctuation, or indeed any division of the 
text. Especially are they found in places where there 
is something unusual in the structure of the sentence. 

St. John iv. 35-6 (Aevkai ciow mpds Oepiopov dn) has 
suffered in this way,—owing to the unusual position 
of 7dn. Certain of the scribes who imagined that 76n 
might belong to ver. 36, rejected the xaé as superfluous ; 
though no Father is known to have been guilty of such 
a solecism. Others, aware that 75) can only belong to 
ver. 35, were not unwilling to part with the copula at the 
beginning of ver. 36. A few, considering both words of 
doubtful authority, retained neither!. In this way it has 
come to pass that there are four ways of exhibiting this 
place :—(a@) mpds Oepiopdv dn. Kati 6 Oepli{wv:—(b) mpds 
Oepiopdv. “Hbdn 6 0.:—(c) mpds Oepropov Hon. ‘O Oepigwv :— 
(2) mpos Oepiopdv. ‘O Oepicwr, x.7.d. 

* It is clearly unsafe to draw any inference from the mere omission of #5n in 
ver. 35, by those Fathers who do not shew how they would have begun ver. 36— 
as Eusebius (see below, note 2), Theodoret oa 1398: ii. 233), and Hilary (78. 
443. 941. 1041). 


The only point of importance however is the position 
of 75n: which is claimed for ver. 35 by the great mass of 
the copies: as well as by Origen +, Eusebius *, Chrysostom °, 
Cyril*, the Vulgate, Jerome of course, and the Syriac. 
The Italic copies are hopelessly divided here*: and Codd. 
NBMII do not help us. But 75m is claimed for ver. 36 
by CDEL, 33, and by the Curetonian and Lewis (=kxai 
767 6 Oepi(wv): while Codex A is singular in beginning ver. 
36, 7}5n xai,—which shews that some early copyist, with 
the correct text before him, adopted a vicious punctuation. 
For there can be no manner of doubt that the commonly 
received text and the usual punctuation is the true one: 
as, on a careful review of the evidence, every unprejudiced 
reader will allow. But recent critics are for leaving out xaf 
(with SBCDL): while Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Tre- 
gelles (marg.), are for putting the full stop after mpos Oeproudv 
and (with ACDL) making 73 begin the next sentence,— 
which (as Alford finds out) is clearly inadmissible., 

§ 2. 

Sometimes this affects the translation. Thus, the Revisers 
propose in the parable of the prodigal son,—‘ And I perish 
here with hunger!’ But why ‘ere?’ Because I answer, 
whereas in the earliest copies of St. Luke the words stood 
thus,—€PF WAEAIMWATIOAAYMAI, some careless scribe 
after writing €TWAE, reduplicated the three last letters 
(WAE): he mistook them for an independent word. 

1 i, 219: iii, 158: iv. 248, 250 b2s, 251 2s, 252, 253, 255 425, 256, 257. Also 
iv. 440 note, which = cat % iy. 21. 

2 dem. 440. But not 2 es. 426: theoph. 262, 275. 

8 vii. 488, 662: ix. 32. 

* i. 397. 98. (Palladius) 611: iii. 57. So also in iv. 199, €rotpos #5n mpds 

5 Ambrose, ii. 279, has ‘Zt gui metit. Iren.'t substitutes ‘am’ for ‘et,’ and 
omits ‘jam.’ Jerome 9g times introduces ‘jam’ before ‘ albae sunt. So Aug. 
(iii? 417): but elsewhere (iv. 639: Vv. 531) he omits the word altogether. 


Accordingly in the Codex Bezae,in R and U and about ten 
cursives, we encounter eyw de wie. The inventive faculty 
having thus done its work it remained to superadd ‘trans- 
position, as was done by NBL. From eyo de wide Apo, the 
sentence has now developed into eyw d¢ Awww wde: which 
approves itself to Griesbach and Schultz, to Lachmann and 
Tischendorf and Tregelles, to Alford and Westcott and Hort, 
and to the Revisers. A very ancient blunder, certainly, éyw 
dé Sde is: for it is found in the Latin! and the Syriac 
translations. It must therefore date from the second 
century. But it is a blunder notwithstanding: a blunder 
against which 16 uncials and the whole body of the 
cursives bear emphatic witness*. Having detected its 
origin, we have next to trace its progress. 

The inventors of éd¢ or other scribes quickly saw that 
this word requires a correlative in the earlier part of the 
sentence. Accordingly, the same primitive authorities 
which advocate ‘here,’ are observed also to advocate, above, 
‘in my Father’s house.’ No extant Greek copy is known 
to contain the bracketed words in the sentence [év 7@ oiko] 
Tod matpds wou: but such copies must have existed in the 
second century. The Peshitto, the Cureton and Lewis 
recognize the three words in question ; as well as copies of 
the Latin with which Jerome*, Augustine * and Cassian ® 
were acquainted. The phrase ‘in domo patris mei’ has 
accordingly established itself in the Vulgate. But surely 
we of the Church of England who have been hitherto 
spared this second blunder, may reasonably (at the end 
of 1700 years) refuse to take the first downward step. 
Our LORD intended no contrast whatever between two 

1 ‘Hic’ is not recognized in Ambrose. Afpend. ii. 367. 

* The Fathers render us very little help here. Ps.-Chrys. twice (viii. 34: 
x. 838) has éy® 5@ d5e: once (viii. 153) not. John Damascene (ii. 579) is 
without the dde. 

3 i. 76: vi. 16 (ot vi. 484). * iii? 259 (mot Vv. 511). 

5 p. 405. 


localities—but between two parties. The comfortable 
estate of the hired servants He set against the abject 
misery of the Son: not the house wherein the servants 
dwelt, and the spot where the poor prodigal was standing 
when he came to a better mind.—These are many words ; 
but I know not how to be briefer. And,—what is worthy 
of discussion, if not the utterances of ‘the Word made 
flesh ?’ 

If hesitation to accept the foregoing verdict lingers in 
any quarter, it ought to be dispelled by a glance at the 
context in NBL. What else but the instinct of a trained 
understanding is it to survey the neighbourhood of a place 
like the present? Accordingly, we discover that in ver. 16, 
for yeuioa: THY KolAlay avtod dwd, NBDLR present us with 
xopracOnvat ex: and in ver. 22, the prodigal, on very nearly 
the same authority (NBDUX), is made to say to his 
father,—Ilotnoov pe os Eva Tév picbiwv cov: 

Which certainly he did not say?. Moreover, NBLX and 
the Old Latin are for thrusting in raxv (D raxews) after 
efevéyxate. Are not these one and all confessedly fabricated 
readings? the infelicitous attempts of some well-meaning 
critic to improve upon the inspired original ? 

From the fact that three words in St. John v. 44 were 
in the oldest MSS. written thus,—MONOYOYOY (i.e. pdvov 
@cod od), the middle word (6c0d) got omitted from some 
very early copies; whereby the sentence is made to run 
thus in English,—‘ And seek not the honour which cometh 
from the only One.’ It is so that Origen?, Eusebius °, 
Didymus‘*, besides the two best copies of the Old Latin, 
exhibit the place. As to Greek MSS., the error survives 
only in B at the present day, the preserver of an 
Alexandrian error. 

? [The prodigal was prepared to say this; but his father’s kindness stopped 
him :—a feature in the account which the Codexes in question ignore. ] 

? iii, 687. But in i. 228 and 259 he recognizes @eov. 

3 Ap. Mai vii. 135. * Praep. xiii. 6,—pévov Tod évds (vol. ii. 294). 


§ 3. 

St. Luke explains (Acts xxvii. 14) that it was the ‘typhonic 
- wind called Euroclydon’ which caused the ship in which 
St. Paul and he sailed past Crete to incur the ‘harm and 
loss’ so graphically described in the last chapter but one 
of the Acts. That wind is mentioned nowhere but in this 
one place. Its name however is sufficiently intelligible ; 
being compounded of Eitpos, the ‘south-east wind, and 
kdviwv, ‘a tempest:’ a compound which happily survives 
intact in the Peshitto version. The Syriac translator, not 
knowing what the word meant, copied what he saw,—‘ the 
blast’ (he says) ‘of the tempest, which [blast] is called 
Tophonikos Euroklidon.’ Not so the licentious scribes 
of the West. They insisted on extracting out of the 
actual ‘Euroclydon, the imaginary name ‘Euro-aquilo,’ 
which accordingly stands to this day in the Vulgate. (Not 
that Jerome himself so read the name of the wind, or he 
would hardly have explained ‘ Eurielion’ or ‘ Euriclion’ 
to mean ‘commiscens, sive deorsum ducens*.’) Of this 
feat of theirs, Codexes N and A (in which EYPOKAYAWN 
has been perverted into EYPAKYAWN) are at this day 
the sole surviving Greek witnesses. Well may the evidence 
for ‘Euro-aquilo’ be scanty! The fabricated word col- 
lapses the instant it is examined. Nautical men point 
out that it is ‘inconsistent in its construction with the 
principles on which the names of the intermediate or 
compound winds are framed :’— 

‘Euronotus is so called as intervening immediately be- 
tween Lurus and Notus, and as partaking, as was thought, 
of the qualities of both. The same holds true of Lzbonotus, 
as being interposed between Zzés and Motus. Both these 
compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrant of 
the circle with the winds of which they are composed, and 

* Same word occurs in St. Mark iv. 37. ? iii. IOI. 


no other wind intervenes. But ELurus and Aguilo are at 
go distance from one another; or according to some 
writers, at 105°; the former lying in the south-east quarter, 
and the latter in the north-east: and two winds, one of 
which is the East cardinal point, intervene, as Caecias and 
Subsolanus?.’ . 

Further, why should the wind be designated by an im- 
possible Latix name? The ship was ‘a ship of Alexandria’ 
(ver. 6). The sailors were Greeks. What business has 
‘Aquilo’ here? Next, if the wind did bear the name 
of ‘ Euro-aquilo,’ why is it introduced in this marked way 
(aveuos tupwrixds, 6 Kadodpevos) as if it were a kind of 
curiosity? Such a name would utterly miss the point, 
which is the violence of the wind as expressed in the term 
Euroclydon. But above all, if St. Luke wrote EYPAK.-, 
how has it come to pass that every copyist but three has 
written EYPOK-? The testimony of B is memorable. 
The original scribe wrote EYPAKYAWN?: the secunda 
manus has corrected this into EYPYKAYAWN,—which is 
also the reading of Euthalius*. The essential circumstance 
is, that zot YAWN but YAWN has all along been the last 
half of the word in Codex B+. 

1 Falconer’s Dissertation on St. Paul’s Voyage, pp. 16 and 12. 

? Let the learned Vercellone be heard on behalf of Codex B: ‘Antequam 
manum de tabula amoveamus, e re fore videtur, si, ipso codice Vaticano 
inspecto, duos injectos scrupulos eximamus. Cl. Tischendorfius in nuperrima 
sua editione scribit (Proleg. p. cclxxv), Maium ad Act. xxvii. 14, codici 
Vaticano tribuisse a prima manu evpaxAvdwy; nos vero evpaxvdwy ; atque sub- 
jungit, “‘wtrumgue, ut videtur, male.” At, quidquid “ videri” possit, certum 
nobis exploratumque est Vaticanum codicem primo habuisse evpaxvdwv, prout 
expressum fuit tum in tabella qué Maius Birchianas lectiones notavit, tum in 
alteré qua nos errata corrigenda recensuimus.’—Preefatio to Mai’s 2nd ed. of 
the Cod. Vaticanus, 1859 (8vo), p. v. § vi. [Any one may now see this in 
the photographed copy. ] 

3 Ap. Galland. x. 225. 

* Remark that some vicious sections evidently owed their origin to the 
copyist knowing more of Latin than of Greek. 

True, that the compounds euronotus euroauster exist in Latin. That is the 


In St. John iv. 15, on the authority of NB, Tischendorf 
adopts é:épxeo6a: (in place of the uncompounded verb), as- 
signing as his reason, that ‘ If St. John had written épxeoda, 
no one would ever have substituted d€pxeoOa for it.’ But 
to construct the text of Scripture on such considerations, 
is to build a lighthouse on a quicksand. I could have 
referred the learned Critic to plenty of places where the 
thing he speaks of as incredible has been done. The 
proof that St. John used the uncompounded verb is the 
fact that it is found in all the copies except our two 
untrustworthy friends. The explanation of Alepyopar is 
sufficiently accounted for by the final syllable (AE) of yndé 
which immediately precedes. Similarly but without the 
same excuse, 

St. Mark x. 16 evAoyes has become xarevdoye: (NBC). 
5) Xii. 17 Oavpacav = e€eOavpacay (NB). 
» Xiv. 40 BeBapynpevor ,, kataBeBapnuevor (ANB). 
It is impossible to doubt that xa: (in modern critical 
editions of St. Luke xvii. 37) is indebted for its existence 
to the same cause. In the phrase éxe? cvvaxOjoovrar of deroi 
it might have been predicted that the last syllable of éxe? 
would some day be mistaken for the conjunction. And so 

reason why the Latin translator (not understanding the word) rendered it 
Euroaqguilo: instead of writing Euraguilo. 

I have no doubt that it was some Latin copyist who began the mischief. 
Like the man who wrote én’ ait@ 7 Pdpy for én’ abtopwpy. 

Readings of Euroclydon 

Euroaquilo Vulg. 



it has actually come to pass. KAI oz aeror is met with in many 
ancient authorities. But NLB also transposed the clauses, 
and substituted emovvayOnoovta for cvvaxéjoovra. The 
self-same casualty, viz. xa: elicited out of the insertion of 
exe. and the transposition of the clauses, is discoverable 
among the Cursives at St. Matt. xxiv. 28,—the parallel 
place: where by the way the old uncials distinguish them- 
selves by yet graver eccentricities’. How can we as 
judicious critics ever think of disturbing the text of 
Scripture on evidence so precarious as this? 

It is proposed that we should henceforth read St. Matt. 
xXxil. 23 as follows:—‘On that day there came to Him 
Sadducees saying that there is no Resurrection. A new 
incident would be in this way introduced into the Gospel 
narrative: resulting from a novel reading of the passage. 
Instead of of A€yovres, we are invited to read Aéyovres, on 
the authority of NBDMSZP and several of the Cursives, 
besides Origen, Methodius, Epiphanius. This is a respect- 
able array, There is nevertheless a vast preponderance of 
numbers in favour of the usual reading, which is also found 
in the Old Latin copies and in the Vulgate. But surely 
the discovery that in the parallel Gospels it is— 

olrwes Aێyovow dvdoracww pr eivar (St. Mark xii. 18) and 
oi dyriAéyovtes dvdoracww pr eivar (St. Luke xx. 27) 

may be considered as decisive in a case like the present. 
Sure I am that it will be so regarded by any one who has 
paid close attention to the method of the Evangelists. 
Add that the origin of the mistake is seen, the instant the 
words are inspected as they must have stood in an uncial 


and really nothing more requires to be said. The second 
Ol was safe to be dropped in a collocation of letters like 

? Onov (ov &) -yap (—yap NBDL) eay (av D) 70 trwpa (cwpa §). 
Il. E 


that. It might also have been anticipated, that there 
would be found copyists to be confused by the antecedent 
KAI. Accordingly the Peshitto, Lewis, and Curetonian 
render the place ‘et dicentes;’ shewing that they mistook 
KAI Ol AEFONTES for a separate phrase. 

§ 4. 

The termination TO (in certain tenses of the verb), when 
followed by the neuter article, naturally leads to confusion ; 
sometimes to uncertainty. In St. John v. 4 for instance, 
where we read in our copies xal érdpacoe 7d tdwp, but so 
many MSS. read érapdocero, that it becomes a perplexing 
question which reading to follow. The sense in either 
case is excellent: the only difference being whether the 
Evangelist actually says that the Angel ‘troubled’ the 
water, or leaves it to be inferred from the circumstance 
that after the Angel had descended, straightway the water | 
‘was troubled.’ 

The question becomes less difficult of decision when (as in 
St. Luke vii. 21) we have to decide between two expressions 
éxapicato BAérew (which is the reading of N*ABDEG and 
11 other uncials) and éxapfoaro 7d BAéwewv which is only 
supported by NPELVA. The bulk of the Cursives faith- 
fully maintain the former reading, and merge the article in 
the verb. 

Akin to the foregoing are all those instances,—and they 
are literally without number—, where the proximity of 
a like ending has been the fruitful cause of error. Let me 
explain: for this is a matter which cannot be too thoroughly 

Such a collection of words as the following two instances 
exhibit will shew my meaning. 

In the expression éo@jra Aaympav dvérewpev (St. Luke 
xxiii. 11), we are not surprised to find the first syllable of 


the verb (av) absorbed by the last syllable of the im- 
mediately preceding Aaurpdv. Accordingly, NLR supported 
by one copy of the Old Latin and a single cursive MS. 
concur in displaying ézeuwer in this place. 

The letters NAIKWNAIKAI in the expression (St. Luke 
xxiii. 27) yuvaixdy at kal were safe to produce confusion. 
The first of these three words could of course take care of 
itself. (Though D, with some of the Versions, make it 
into yuvaikes.) Not so however what follows. ABCDLX 
and the Old Latin (except c) drop the car: 8 and C drop 
the a. The truth rests with the fourteen remaining uncials 
and with the cursives. 

Thus also the reading ev ody tn TadtAaa (B) in St. Matt. 
iv. 23, (adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, 
Alford, Westcott and Hort and the Revisers,) is due simply 
to the reduplication on the part of some inattentive scribe 
of the last two letters of the immediately preceding word,— 
mepinyev. The received reading of the place is the correct 
one,—kal wepijyev SdAnv thy TadiAalav 6 "Inoods, because 
the first five words are so exhibited in all the Copies 
except BNC; and those three MSS. are observed to 
differ as usual from one another,—which ought to be 
deemed fatal to their evidence. Thus, 

B reads kat wreptijyev év SAn tH TadtAaig. 
C ,,  xal mepufyer 6 ts ev 6An TH Tadsdala. 

But—(I shall be asked)—what about the position of the 
Sacred Name? How comes it to pass that 6 "Incods, which | 
comes after [adtAafay in almost every other known copy, 
should come after zmepijyev in three of these venerable 
authorities (in D as well as in & and C), and in the Latin, 
Peshitto, Lewis, and Harkleian? Tischendorf, Alford, West- 
cott and Hort and the Revisers at all events (who simply 
follow B in leaving out 6 "Inoots altogether) will not ask 
me this question: but a thoughtful inquirer is sure to ask it. 

E 2 

» kal mepinyev 6 is év TH TadtAala. 


The phrase (I reply) is derived by NCD from the twin 
place in St. Matthew (ix. 35) which in all the MSS. begins 
kal mepijyev 6 ts. So familiar had this order of the words 
become, that the scribe of &, (a circumstance by the way of 
which Tischendorf takes no notice,) has even introduced 
the expression into St. Mark vi. 6,—the parallel place in 
the second Gospel,—where 6 ts clearly has no business. 
I enter into these minute details because only in this way 
is the subject before us to be thoroughly understood. This 
is another instance where ‘the Old Uncials’ shew their 
text to be corrupt; so for assurance in respect of accuracy 
of detail we must resort to the Cursive Copies. 

§ 5. 

The introduction of dad in the place of ayio. made by 
the ‘Revisers’ into the Greek Text of 2 Peter i. 21,— 
derives its origin from the same prolific source. [1] some 
very ancient scribe mistook the first four letters of ay.ou for 
azo. It was but the mistaking of ATIO for ATTO. At the 
end of 1700 years, the only Copies which witness to this de- 
formity are BP with four cursives,—in opposition to NAKL 
and the whole body of the cursives, the Vulgate! and 
the Harkleian. Euthalius knew nothing of it 2. Obvious 
it was, next, for some one in perplexity,—[2] to introduce 
both readings (476 and Gyo) into the text. Accordingly 
a70 Ocod Gyior is found in C, two cursives, and Didymus®. 
Then, [3], another variant crops up, (viz. x6 for axé—but 
only because izé went immediately before) ; of which fresh 
blunder (id ©co6 dy.o) Theophylact is the sole patron‘. 
The consequence of all this might have been foreseen: 
[4] it came to pass that from a few Codexes, both azo and 
ayto. were left out,—which accounts for the reading of 

. Sancti Det homines. 2 Ap. Galland. x. 236 a. 
3 Trin. 234. * iii. 389. 


certain copies of the Old Latin’. Unaware how the blunder 
began, Tischendorf and his followers claim ‘[2],’ ‘[3], and 
‘[4],’ as proofs that ‘[1]’ is the right reading: and, by 
consequence, instead of ‘oly men of GOD spake,’ require 
us to read ‘men spake from GOD, which is wooden and 
vapid. Is it not clear that a reading attested by only BP 
and four cursive copies must stand self-condemned ? 

Another excellent specimen of this class of error is 
furnished by Heb. vii. 1. Instead of ‘O cvvavrjcas "ABpadu 
—said of Melchizedek,—XNABD exhibit OC. The whole 
body of the copies, headed by CLP, are against them ?,— 
besides Chrysostom*®, Theodoret*, Damascene®. It is 
needless to do more than state how this reading arose. 
The initial letter of ovvaytjcas has been reduplicated 
through careless transcription: OCCYN—instead of OCYN—. 
That is all. But the instructive feature of the case is that 
it is in the four oldest of the uncials that this palpable 
blunder is found. 

§ 6. 

I have reserved for the last a specimen which is second 
to none in suggestiveness. ‘Whom will ye that I release 
unto you?’ asked Pilate on a memorable occasion®: and 
we all remember how his enquiry proceeds. But the 
discovery is made that, in an early age there existed 
copies of the Gospel which proceeded thus,— Jesus [who 
is called’] Barabbas, or JESUS who is called CHRIST?’ 

1 « Locuti sunt homines Det. 

2 Their only supporters seem to be K [i.e. Paul 117 (Matthaei’s §)], 17, 59 
[published in full by Cramer, vii. 202], 137 [Reiche, p. 60]. Why does 
Tischendorf quote besides E of Paul, which is nothing else but a copy of D 
of Paul? 

3 Chrys. xii, 120 b, 121 a. * Theodoret, iii. 584. 

5 J. Damascene, ii. 240 c. § St. Matt. xxvii. 17. 

7 Cf. 6 Aeydpevos BapaBBas. St. Mark xv. 7. 


Origen so quotes the place, but ‘In many copies,’ he proceeds, 
‘mention is not made that Barabbas was also called Jesus: 
and those copies may perhaps be right,—else would the 
name of Jesus belong to one of the wicked,—of which no 
instance occurs in any part of the Bible: nor is it fitting 
that the name of Jesus should like Judas have been borne 
by saint and sinner alike. I think,’ Origen adds, ‘some- 
thing of this sort must have been an interpolation of the 
heretics'.’ From this we are clearly intended to infer that 
‘Jesus Barabbas’ was the prevailing reading of St. Matt. 
xxvii. 17 in the time of Origen, a circumstance which — 
besides that a multitude of copies existed as well as those 
of Origen—for the best of reasons, we take leave to 
pronounce incredible ?. 

The sum of the matter is probably this:—Some in- 
attentive second century copyist [probably a Western 
Translator into Syriac who was an indifferent Greek scholar] 
mistook the final syllable of ‘ato you’ (YMIN) for the 
word ‘ Fesus’ (IN): in other words, carelessly reduplicated 
the last two letters of YMIN,—from which, strange to say, 
results the form of inquiry noticed at the outset. Origen 
caught sight of the extravagance, and condemned it though 
he fancied it to be prevalent, and the thing slept for 1500 

Int. ili. 918 c d. 

* On the two other occasions when Origen quotes St. Matt. xxvii. 17 (i. 3164 
and ii. 245 a) nothing is said about ‘ Jesus Barabbas.’—Alluding to the place, 
he elsewhere (ili. 853 d) merely says that ‘Secundum quosdam Barabbas dice- 
batur et Jesus. —The author of a well-known scholion, ascribed to Anastasius, 
Bp. of Antioch, but query, for see Migne, vol. lxxxix. p. 1352 b c (= Galland. 
xii. 253.c), and 1604 a, declares that he had found the same statement ‘in very 
early copies.’ The scholion in question is first cited by Birch (Varr. Lectt. 
p. 110) from the following MSS. :—S, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 146, 181, 186, 
195, 197, 199 or 200, 209, 210, 221, 222: to which Scholz adds 41, 237, 238, 
253, 259, 299: Tischendorf adds 1, 118. In Gallandius (Bibl. P. P. xiv. 81de, 
Append.), the scholion may be seen more fully given than by Birch,—from 
whom Tregelles and Tischendorf copy it. Theophylact (p. 156 a) must have 
seen the place as quoted by Gallandius. The only evidence, so far as 
I can find, for reading ‘ Jesus Barabbas’ (in St. Matt. xxvii. 16, 17) are five 
disreputable Evangelia 1, 118, 209, 241, 299,—the Armenian Version, the 
Jerusalem Syriac, [and the Sinai Syriac]; (see Adler, pp. 172-3). 


years. Then about just fifty years ago Drs. Lachmann, 
Tischendorf and Tregelles began to construct that ‘fabric 
of Textual Criticism’ which has been the cause of the 
present treatise [though indeed Tischendorf does not adopt 
the suggestion of those few aberrant cursives which is 
supported by no surviving uncial, and in fact advocates the 
very origin of the mischief which has been just described]. 
But, as every one must see, such things as these are not 
‘readings’ at all, nor even the work of ‘the heretics ;’ 
but simply transcriptional mistakes. How Dr. Hort, ad- 
mitting the blunder, yet pleads that ‘this remarkable 
reading is attractive by the new and interesting fact which 
it seems to attest, and by the antithetic force which it 
seems to add to the question in ver. 17,’ [is more than 
we can understand. To us the expression seems most 
repulsive. No ‘antithetic force’ can outweigh our dislike 
to the idea that Barabbas was our SAVIOUR’S namesake! 
We prefer Origen’s account, though he mistook the cause, 
to that of the modern critic. ] 




[IT has been already shewn in the First Volume that the 
Art of Transcription on vellum did not reach perfection 
till after the lapse of many centuries in the life of the 
Church. Even in the minute elements of writing much 
uncertainty prevailed during a great number of successive 
ages. It by no means followed that, if a scribe possessed 
a correct auricular knowledge of the Text, he would there- 
fore exhibit it correctly on parchment. Copies were largely 
disfigured with misspelt words. And vowels especially 
were interchanged; accordingly, such change became in 
many instances the cause of corruption, and is known in 
Textual Criticism under the name ‘ Itacism.’] 

§ 1. 

It may seem to a casual reader that in what follows 
undue attention is being paid to minute particulars. But 
it constantly happens,—and this is a sufficient answer to 
the supposed objection,—that, from exceedingly minute 
and seemingly trivial mistakes, there result sometimes 
considerable and indeed serious misrepresentations of the 
SPIRIT’S meaning. New incidents :—unheard-of 'state- 
ments :—facts as yet unknown to readers of Scripture :— 


perversions of our LORD’s Divine sayings :—such phenomena 
are observed to follow upon the omission of the article,— 
the insertion of an expletive,—the change of a single letter. 
Thus zadw, thrust in where it has no business, makes it 
appear that our SAVIOUR promised to return the ass on 
which He rode in triumph into Jerusalem'. By writing 
w for o, many critics have transferred some words from the 
lips of CHRIST to those of His Evangelist, and made Him 
say what He never could have dreamed of saying*. By 
subjoining s to a word in a place which it has no right 
to fill, the harmony of the heavenly choir has been marred 
effectually, and a sentence produced which defies trans- 
lation®. By omitting ro and Kvpte, the repenting malefactor 
is made to say, ‘Jesus! remember me, when Thou comest 
in Thy kingdom*.’ 

Speaking of our SAVIOUR’S triumphal entry into Jerusa- 
lem, which took place ‘the day after’ ‘they made Him 
a supper,’ and Lazarus ‘which had been dead, whom He 
raised from the dead,’‘ sat at the table with Him’ (St. John 
xii. 1, 2), St. John says that ‘the multitude which had been 
with Him when He called Lazarus out of the tomb and 
raised Him from the dead bare testimony’ (St. John xii. 
17). The meaning of this is best understood by a reference 
to St. Luke xix. 37, 38, where it is explained that it was 
the sight of so many acts of Divine Power, the chiefest 
of all being the raising of Lazarus, which moved the crowds 
to yield the memorable testimony recorded by St. Luke in 
ver. 38,—by St. John in ver. 13°. But Tischendorf and 
Lachmann, who on the authority of Dand four later uncials 
read drt instead of ére, import into the Gospel quite another 
meaning. According to their way of exhibiting the text, 

1 St. Mark xi. 4. See Revision Revised, pp. 57-58. 

2 St. Mark vii. 19, xa@api{av for xadpifov. See below, pp. 61-3. 
3 St. Luke ii. 14. * St. Luke xxiii. 42. 

5 St. Matt. xxi. 9. See also St. Mark xi. 9, Io. 


St. John is made to say that ‘the multitude which was with 
JESUS, testified shat He called Lazarus out of the tomb 
and raised him from the dead’: which is not only an 
entirely different statement, but also the introduction of 
a highly improbable circumstance. That many copies 
of the Old Latin (not of the Vulgate) recognize ér., besides 
the Peshitto and the two Egyptian versions, is not denied. 
This is in fact only one more proof of the insufficiency of 
such collective testimony. NAB with the rest of the uncials 
and, what is of more importance, the whole body of the 
cursives, exhibit éte,—which, as every one must see, is 
certainly what St. John wrote in this place. Tischendorf’s 
assertion that the prolixity of the expression épdvycev  éx 
Tod pvnuetov Kal iyerpev adtov éx vexpov is inconsistent with 
éve!,—may surprise, but will never convince any one who 
is even moderately acquainted with St. John’s peculiar 

The same mistake—of 67. for 6re—is met with at ver. 41 
of the same chapter. ‘These things said Isaiah decause he 
saw His glory’ (St. John xii. 41). And why not ‘when 
he saw His glory’? which is what the Evangelist wrote 
according to the strongest attestation. True, that eleven 
manuscripts (beginning with NABL) and the Egyptian 
versions exhibit 671: also Nonnus, who lived in the Thebaid 
(A.D. 410): but all other MSS., the Latin, Peshitto, Gothic, 
Ethiopic, Georgian, and one Egyptian version :—Origen?,— 
Eusebius in four places*,—Basil +,—Gregory of Nyssa twice ®, 
—Didymus three times °,— Chrysostom twice 7,—Severianus 
of Gabala * ;—these twelve Versions and Fathers constitute 
a body of ancient evidence which is overwhelming. Cyril 

* ‘Quae quidem orationis prolixitas non conveniens esset si dre legendum 

= iv. 577: ‘quando.’ | 3 Dem. Ey. 310, 312, 454 dis. 

* i. 301. 5 ii. 488, and ap. Gall. vi. 580. 

® Trin. 59, 99, 242. 

" viii. 406, 407. Also ps.-Chrysost. v. 613. Note, that ‘Apolinarius’ in 
Cramer’s Cat. 332 is Chrys. viii. 407. 8 Ap. Chrys. vi. 453. 


three times reads 6ru1, three times dre ?,—and once jvixa °, 
which proves at least how he understood the place. 

§ 2. 

[A suggestive example‘ of the corruption introduced by 
a petty Itacism may be found in Rev. i. 5, where the 
beautiful expression which has found its way into so many 
tender passages relating to Christian devotion, ‘Who hath 
washed® us from our sins in His own blood’ (A.V.), is 
replaced in many critical editions (R.V.) by, ‘Who hath 
loosed® us from our sins by His blood.’ In early times 
a purist scribe, who had a dislike of anything that savoured 
of provincial retention of Aeolian or Dorian pronunciations, 
wrote from unconscious bias v for ov, transcribing Avoavrt 
for Aovcavt. (unless he were not Greek scholar enough to 
understand the difference): and he was followed by others, 
especially such as, whether from their own prejudices or 
owing to sympathy with the scruples of other people, but 
at all events under the influence of a slavish literalism, 
hesitated about a passage as to which they did not rise to 
the spiritual height of the precious meaning really conveyed 
therein. Accordingly the three uncials, which of those that 
give the Apocalypse date nearest to the period of cor- 
ruption, adopt v, followed by nine cursives, the Harkleian 
Syriac, and the Armenian versions. On the other side, 
two uncials—viz. B? of the eighth century and P of 

1 iv. 505, 709, and ap. Mai iii. 85. 

? ii. 102: iv. 709, and a. Mai iii. 118. S yl. 642. 

* Unfortunately, though the Dean left several lists of instances of Itacism, he 
worked out none, except the substitution of éy for év in St. Mark iv. 8, which 
as it is not strictly on all fours with the rest 1 have reserved till last. He 
mentioned all that I have introduced (besides a few others), on detached 
papers, some of them more than once, and Aotvoay7: and xa@apifov even more 
than the others, In the brief discussion of each instance which I have supplied, 
I have endeavoured whenever it was practicable to include any slight expres- 

sions of the Dean’s that I could find, and to develop all surviving hints. 
5 Aovoartt. § AvoayTt. 


the ninth—the Vulgate, Bohairic, and Ethiopic, write 
Aovoayvtt; and—what is most important—all the other 
cursives except the handful just mentioned, so far as ex- 
amination has yet gone, form a barrier which forbids 

An instance where an error from an Itacism has crept 
into the Textus Receptus may be seen in St. Luke xvi. 25. 
Some scribes needlessly changed 6d into 6d¢, misinter- 
preting the letter which served often for both the long and 
the short 0, and thereby cast out some illustrative meaning, 
since Abraham meant to lay stress upon the enjoyment 
‘in his bosom’ of comfort by Lazarus. The unanimity of 
the uncials, a majority of the cursives, the witness of the 
versions, that of the Fathers quote the place being uncertain, 
are sufficient to prove that éé¢ is the genuine word. 

Again, in St. John xiii. 25, ofrws has dropped out of 
many copies and so out of the Received Text because by 
an Itacism it was written odros in many manuscripts. 
Therefore éxeivos otros was thought to bea clear mistake, 
and the weaker word was accordingly omitted. No doubt 
Latins and others who did not understand Greek well con- 
sidered also that otrws was redundant, and this was the 
cause of its being omitted in the Vulgate. But really otras, 
being sufficiently authenticated 1, is exactly in consonance 
with Greek usage and St. John’s style?, and adds consider- 
ably to the graphic character of the sacred narrative. 
St. John was reclining (dvaxe(uevos) on his left arm over the 
bosom of the robe (éy 7@ KéAm@) of the SAVIOUR. When 
St. Peter beckoned to him he turned his head for the 
moment and sank (émzeody, not dvanecdv which has the 
testimony only of B and about twenty-five uncials, 8 and C 

* otras, BOEFGHLMXA. Most cursives. Goth. 

otros. KSUPA, Ten cursives. 

Omit NADI. Many cursives. Vulg. Pesh. Ethiop. Armen. Georg. Slavon. 
Bohair. Pers. 

? E.g. Thue. vii. 15, St. John iy. 6. 


being divided against themselves) on the breast of the 
Lord, being still in the general posture in which he was 
(otrws*), and asked Him in a whisper ‘ LORD, who is it?’ 
Another case of confusion between w and o may be seen 
in St. Luke xv. 24, 32, where azoA@Ads has gained so strong 
a hold that it is found in the Received Text for drodwdds, 
which last being the better attested appears to be the right 
reading”. But the instance which requires the most atten- 
tion is xa@apidov in St. Mark vii. 19, and all the more 
because in The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, the 
alteration into xa0apl(wv is advocated as being ‘no part of 
the Divine discourse, but the Evangelist’s inspired comment 
on the SAVIOUR’S words®.’ Such a question must be decided 
strictly by the testimony, not upon internal evidence— 
which in fact is in this case absolutely decisive neither way, 
for people must not be led by the attractive view opened by 
kabapi{wr, and xa@dpicov bears a very intelligible meaning. 
When we find that the uncial evidence is divided, there 
being eight against the change (B2KMUVITII), and 
eleven for it (RABEFGHLSXA) ;—that not much is 
advanced by the versions, though the Peshitto, the Lewis 

See St. John iv. 6: Acts xx. 11, xxvii.17. The beloved Apostle was there- 
fore called 6 émornOtos. See Suicer.s. v. Westcott on St. John xiii. 25. 

2 24. dmodAwaws. N*ABD &c. 

drodwads. S*GKMRSXTIM*. Most curs. 

32. dmodAwaws. N*ABD &c. 

drodwads. NS KMRSXTM*. Most curs. 

® Pp. 179, 180. Since the Dean has not adopted xabapi{wr into his corrected 
text, and on account of other indications which caused me to doubt whether he 
retained the opinion of his earlier years, I applied to the Rev. W. F. Rose, who 
answered as follows :—‘I am thankful to say that I can resolve all doubt as to 
my uncle’s later views of St. Mark vii.19. In his annotated copy of the 7we/ve 
Verses he deletes the words in his note p. 179, “‘ This appears to be the true 
reading,” and writes in the margin, “ The old reading is doubtless the true one,” 
and in the margin of the paragraph referring to ea6api{wv on p. 180 he writes, 
“ Alter the wording of this.” This entirely agrees with my own recollection of 
many conversations with him on the subject. I think he felt that the weight of 
the cursive testimony to the old reading was conclusive,—at least that he was not 
justified in changing the text in spite of it These last words of Mr. Rose 
express exactly the inference that I had drawn. 


Codex, the Harkleian(?), the Gothic, the Old Latin’, 
the Vulgate, favour xa@dpi¢ov ;—nor by the Fathers :—since 
Aphraates?, Augustine (?)°, and Novatian* are contradicted 
by Origen®, Theophylact®, and Gregory Thaumaturgus’, 
we discover that we have not so far made much way 
towards a satisfactory conclusion. The only decided 
element of judgement, so far as present enquiries have 
reached, since suspicion is always aroused by the conjunction 
of NAB, is supplied by the cursives which with a large 
majority witness to the received reading. It is not there- 
fore safe to alter it tilla much larger examination of existing 
evidence is made than is now possible. If difficulty is felt 
in the meaning given by xa@dpi¢ov,—and that there is such 
difficulty cannot candidly be denied,—this is balanced by 
the grammatical difficulty introduced by ka@apiCwv, which 
would be made to agree in the same clause with a verb 
separated from it by thirty-five parenthetic words, including 
two interrogations and the closing sentence. Those people 
who form their judgement from the Revised Version should 
bear in mind that the Revisers, in order to make intelligible 
sense, were obliged to introduce three fresh English words 
that have nothing to correspond to them in the Greek; 
being a repetition of what the mind of the reader would 
hardly bear in memory. Let any reader who doubts this 
leave out the words in italics and try the effect for himself. 

1 «The majority of the Old Latin MSS. have “in secessum uadit (or exiit) 
purgans omnes escas”’; z (Vindobonensis) and x (Usserianus) have “ et purgat” 
for “ purgans”’: and a has a conflation “ in secessum exit purgans omnes escas 
et exit in rivam ”—so they all point the same way.’—(Kindly communicated 
by Mr. H. J. White.) 

* Dem. xv. (Graffin) —‘ Vadit enim esca in ventrem, unde purgatione in 
secessum emittitur.’ (Lat.) 

3 iii. 764. ‘Et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas.’ 

* Galland. iii. 319. ‘Cibis, quos Dominus dicit perire, et in secessu naturali 
lege purgari.’ 

® iii. 494. €Aeye Tatra 6 SwrhHp, xadapiCav navra Ta Bpwpara. 

® i, 206. éxxabapifav mavTa Ta Bpwpara, 

7 Galland. iii. 400, ddAAd kal 6 Swrip, wavra Kabapifev 7a Bpwpara. 


The fact is that to make this reading satisfactory, another 
alteration is required. Ka6api(ov mdvta ta Bpdpara ought 
either to be transferred to the 20th verse or to the beginning 
of the 18th. Then all would be clear enough, though desti- 
tute of a balance of authority : as it is now proposed to read, 
the passage would have absolutely no parallel in the simple 
and transparent sentences of St. Mark. We must therefore 
be guided by the balance of evidence, and that is turned by 
the cursive testimony. ] 

§ 3. 

Another minute but interesting indication of the accuracy 
and fidelity with which the cursive copies were made, is 
supplied by the constancy with which they witness to the 
preposition éy (not the numeral é) in St. Mark iv. 8. Our 
LORD says that the seed which ‘fell into the good ground’ 
‘yielded by (év) thirty, and by (év) sixty, and by (év) an 
hundred.’ Tischendorf notes that besides all the uncials 
which are furnished with accents and breathings (viz. 
EFGHKMUVII) ‘nearly 100 cursives’ exhibit ev here and 
in ver. 20. But this is to misrepresent the case. All the 
cursives may be declared to exhibit év, e.g. all Matthaei’s 
and all Scrivener’s. I have myself with this object ex- 
amined a large number of Evangelia, and found év in all. 
The Basle MS. from which Erasmus derived his text? 
exhibits é¢v,—though he printed & out of respect for the 
Vulgate. The Complutensian having é, the reading of the 
Textus Receptus follows in consequence: but the Tra- 
ditional reading has been shewn to be év,—which is 
doubtless intended by €N in Cod. A. 

Codd. NCA (two ever licentious and A similarly so 
throughout St. Mark) substitute for the preposition é the 
preposition «is,—(a sufficient proof to me that they under- 
stand €N to represent éy, not &): and are followed by 
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the Revisers. As for the char- 

1 Evan. 2. See Hoskier, Collation of Cod. Evan. 604, App. F. p. 4. 



tered libertine B (and its servile henchman L), for the first 
év (but not for the second and third) it substitutes the 
preposition €1C : while, in ver. 20, it retains the first év, but 
omits the other two. In all these vagaries Cod. B is 
followed by Westcott and Hort’. 

1 [The following specimens taken from the first hand of B may illustrate 
the kakigraphy, if I may use the expression, which is characteristic of that MS. 
and also of NX. The list might’be easily increased. 

I. Proper Names. 

Iwayys, generally: Iwayyns, Luke i. 13*, 60,63; Acts iii. 4; iv. 6, 13, 
19; xii. 253 xiii. 5, 25; xv. 37; Rev. i. I, 4, 9; xxil 8. 

BeeCeBovd, Matt. x. 25; xii. 24, 27; Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15, 18, 19. 

Na(aper, Matt. ii. 23; Luke i. 26; John i. 46,47. Na(apa, Matt. iv. 13. 
Na(apeO, Matt. xxi. 11; Luke ii. 51; iv. 16. 

Mapia for Mapiap, Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 19. Mapsapz for Mapia, Matt. 
xxvii. 61; Mark xx. 40; Luke x. 42; xi. 32; John xi. 2; xii. 3; 
xx. 16, 18. See Traditional Text, p. 86. 

Koup, Mark v. 41. ToA-yo0, Luke xix. 17. 

IorpanAera, Iorpandrtat, Iopanderta, Iopandrrat. 

EAeioaBeT, EAtoaBer. 

Mwons, Mwvons. 

Aadpavovyéa, Mark viii. 10. 

Iwon (Joseph of Arimathea), Mark xv. 45. Iwong, Matt. xxvii. 57, 59; 
Mark xv. 42; Luke xxiii. 50; John xix. 38. 

Il. AMts-spelling of ordinary words. 



Kad’ wdkav, Matt. xvii. 1,19; xxiv. 3; Markiv. 34; vi.31, &c. «ar’ cday, 
Matt. xiv. 13, 23; Mark vi. 32; vii. 33, &c. 

yevnpa, Matt. xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25; Luke xxii. 18. -yeyynua, Matt. 
iii. 7; xii. 343 xxiii. 33; Luke iii. 7 (the well-known yeryqpata 

A similar confusion between yéveots and yévynois, Matt. i, and between 
évyernOnv and éyevynOny, and yeyévnpa and yeyévvnya. See Kuenen 
and Cobet N. T. ad fid. Cod. Vaticani Ixxvii. 


«peivw, John xii. 48 (xpevel). x«pivw, Matt. vii. 1; xix. 28; Luke vi. 37; 
Wile 43 $:X11--5"7) occ; 

Tepa, Tid, Matt. xv. 4, 5,8; xix. 19; xxvii. g; Mark vii. 6, 10, &c. 

éveBperynOn (Matt. ix. 30) for éveBpipnoaro. dvaxde.0qvat (Mark vi. 39) 
for dvaxdiva:. oetros for otros (Mark iv. 28). 

Bad Grammar. 

T@ olxodeondtn érenadecay for Tov oikodeamérny éxad. (Matt. x. 25). 
katanatnoovow for -cwow (Matt. vii. 6). & av airnoera: (Matt. 
xiv. 7). Srav 5 dxovere (Mark xiii. 7). 

V. Impossible words. 

éuynotevpévny (Luke i. 27). obpavod for ovpaviov (ii. 13). dvn(yrouv 
(Luke ii. 44). xomodow (Matt. vi. 28). jpwrovy (Matt. xv. 23). 
waracknvov (Mark iv, 32). ets for dpets. tpets for jyets.] 


§ 4. 

St. Paul! in his Epistle to Titus [ii. 5] directs that young 
women shall be ‘keepers at home,’ oikovpods. So, (with five 
exceptions,) every known Codex’, including the corrected 
N and D,—HKLP; besides 17, 37,47. So also Clemens 
Alex.’ (A.D. 180),—Theodore of Mopsuestia *,—Basil °,— 
Chrysostom °,—Theodoret 7,.—Damascene®. So again the 
Old Latin (domum custodientes*)—the Vulgate (domus 
curam habentes*),—and Jerome (habentes domus dili- 
gentiam'): and so the Peshitto and the Harkleian versions, 
—besides the Bohairic. There evidently can be no doubt 
whatever about such a reading so supported. To be oixoupds 
was held to be a woman’s chiefest praise 2: xéAAtorov épyov 
yur} olkovpds, writes Clemens Alex.?*; assigning to the wife 
oixoupia as her proper province!*. On the contrary, ‘gadding 
about from house to house’ is what the Apostle, writing to 
Timothy ', expressly condemns. But of course the decisive 
consideration is not the support derived from internal 
evidence ; but the plain fact that antiquity, variety, respect- 
ability, numbers, continuity of attestation, are all in favour 
of the Traditional reading. 

1 This paper on Titus ii. 5 was marked by the Dean as being ‘ ready for 

press.’ It was evidently one of his later essays, and was left in one of his later 


2 All Matthaei’s 16,—a// Rinck’s 7,—al/ Reiche’s 6,—a// Scrivener’s 13, &c., 
&e. 5 622. 

* Ed. Swete, ii. 247 (domos suas bene regentes); 248 (domus proprias optime 

5 ii. (Z¢th.) 291 a, 309 b. 

6 xi. 750 a, 751 b c d—# oixoupds Kal oixovopurn. 7 iii. 704. 

tee Be ® Cod. Clarom. 

1 Cod. Amiat., and August. iii’. 804. 

1 vii. 716 c, 718 b (Bene domum regere, 718 c). 

2 Kar’ oixov oixovpodow woTe napbéva (Soph. Oed. Col. 343).—‘ Olxoupés est 
quasi proprium vocabulum mulierum: olxovpyds est scribarum commentum,’— 
as Matthaei, whose note is worth reading, truly states. Wetstein’s collections 
here should by all means be consulted. See also Field’s delightful Otium Norv., 

pp. 135-6. 
13 P, 293, dn. 4 (see in, 2). 4 P, 288, liz. 20. 5-7, Fim. Vs 13. 

Il. F 


Notwithstanding this, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, 
Westcott and Hort, because they find oixovpyovs in 
&8*ACD*F-G, are for thrusting that ‘ barbarous and scarcely 
intelligible’ word, if it be not even a non-existent’, into 
Titus ii. 5. The Revised Version in consequence exhibits 
‘workers at home,—which Dr. Field may well call an 
‘unnecessary and most tasteless innovation.’ But it is 
insufficiently attested as well, besides being a plain perver- 
sion of the Apostle’s teaching. [And the error must have 
arisen from carelessness and ignorance, probably in the 
West where Greek was not properly understood. | 

So again, in the cry of the demoniacs, ri nyiv kai coi, 
*Inood, vié rod Oeod; (St. Matt. viii. 29) the name "Inood is 
omitted by BN. 

The reason is plain the instant an ancient MS. is in- 
spected :-—KAICONYYIETOYOY :—the recurrence of the 
same letters caused too great a strain to scribes, and the 
omission of two of them was the result of ordinary human 

Indeed, to this same source are to be attributed an extra- 
ordinary number of so-called ‘various readings’ ; but which 
in reality, as has already been shewn, are nothing else 
but a collection of mistakes,—the surviving tokens that 
anciently, as now, copying clerks left: out words; whether 
misled by the fatal proximity of a like ending, or by the 
speedy recurrence of the like letters, or by some other 
phenomenon with which most men’s acquaintance with 
books have long since made them familiar. 

1 oixoupyetv —which occurs in Clemens Rom. (ad Cor. c. 1)—is probably due 
to the scribe. 




§ 1. 

THERE is one distinct class of evidence provided by 
Almighty Gop for the conservation of the deposit in its 
integrity 1, which calls for special notice in this place. The 
Lectionaries of the ancient Church have not yet nearly 
enjoyed the attention they deserve, or the laborious study 
which in order to render them practically available they 
absolutely require. Scarcely any persons, in fact, except 
professed critics, are at all acquainted with the contents of 
the very curious documents alluded to: while collations 
of any of them which have been hitherto effected are few 
indeed. I speak chiefly of the Books called Evangelistaria 
(or Evangeliaria), in other words, the proper lessons 
collected out of the Gospels, and transcribed into a separate 
volume. Let me freely admit that I subjoin a few ob- 
servations on this subject with unfeigned diffidence ; having 
had to teach myself throughout the little I know ;—and 
discovering in the end how very insufficient for my purpose 
that little is. Properly handled, an adequate study of the 
Lectionaries of the ancient Church would become the labour 

1 [I have retained this passage notwithstanding the objections made in some 
quarters against similar passages in the companion volume, because I think 
them neither valid, nor creditable to high intelligence, or to due reverence. } 

F 2 


of a life. We require exact collations of at least 100 of 
them. From such a practical acquaintance with about 
a tenth of the extant copies some very interesting results 
would infallibly be obtained '. 

As for the external appearance of these documents, it 
may be enough to say that they range, like the mass of 
uncial and cursive copies, over a space of about 700 
years,—the oldest extant being of about the eighth century, 
and the latest dating in the fifteenth. Rarely are any so 
old as the former date,—or so recent as the last named. 
When they began to be executed is not known; but much 
older copies than any which at present exist must have 
perished through constant use: [for they are in perfect order 
when we first become acquainted with them, and as a whole 
they are remarkably consistent with one another]. They 
are almost invariably written in double columns, and not 
unfrequently are splendidly executed. The use of Uncial 
letters is observed to have been retained in documents of 
this class to a later period than in the case of the Evangelia, 
viz. down to the eleventh century. For the most part they 
are furnished with a kind of musical notation executed in 
vermilion; evidently intended to guide the reader in that 
peculiar recitative which is still customary in the oriental 

In these books the Gospels always stand in the following 
order: St. John: St. Matthew: St.Luke: St. Mark. The 
lessons are brief,—resembling the Epistles and Gospels in 
our Book of Common Prayer. 

They seem to me to fall into two classes: (a2) Those 
which contain a lesson for every day in the year: (6) Those 
which only contain [lessons for fixed Festivals and] the 
Saturday-Sunday lessons (caSParoxvpiaxai). We are re- 

‘ [The Textual student will remember that besides the Lectionaries of the 
Gospels mentioned here, of which about 1000 are known, there are some 300 
more of the Acts and Epistles, called by the name Apostolos. j 


minded by this peculiarity that it was not till a very late 
period in her history that the Eastern Church was able to 
shake herself clear of the shadow of the old Jewish Sabbath !. 
[To these Lectionaries Tables of the Lessons were often 
added, of a similar character to those which we have in our 
Prayer-books. The Table of daily Lessons went under 
the title of Synaxarion (or Eclogadion) ; and the Table of the 
Lessons of immovable Festivals and Saints’ days was styled 
Menologion ?. | 

Liturgical use has proved a fruitful source of textual 
perturbation. Nothing less was to have been expected,— 
as every one must admit who has examined ancient Evan- 
gelia with any degree of attention. For a period before 
the custom arose of writing out the Ecclesiastical Lections 
in the ‘ Evangelistaries,’ and ‘Apostolos,’ it may be re- 
garded as certain that the practice generally prevailed of 
accommodating an ordinary copy, whether of the Gospels 
or of the Epistles, to the requirements of the Church. This 
continued to the last to be a favourite method with the 
ancients 3. Not only was it the invariable liturgical practice 
to introduce an ecclesiastical lection with an ever-varying 
formula,—by which means the holy Name is often found in 
MSS. where it has no proper place,—but notes of time, &c., 
[‘like the unique and indubitably genuine word devrepotpdrto*, 
are omitted as carrying no moral lesson, as well as longer 
passages like the case of the two verses recounting the 
ministering Angel with the Agony and the Bloody Sweat ®. 

1 [*It seems also a singular note of antiquity that the Sabbath and the Sunday 
succeeding it do as it were cohere, and bear one appellation; so that the week 
takes its name—woft from the Sunday with which it commences, but—from the 
Saturday-and-Sunday with which it concludes.’ Twelve Verses, p. 194, where 
more particulars are given. ] 

? [For the contents of these Tables, see Scrivener’s Plain Introduction, 4th 
edition, vol. i. pp. 80-89.] 

$ See Scrivener’s Plain Introduction, 4th edition, vol. i. pp. 56-65. 

* Twelve Verses, p. 220. The MS. stops in the middle of a sentence. 

5 St. Luke xxii. 43, 44. 


That Lessons from the New Testament were probably 
read in the assemblies of the faithful according to a definite 
scheme, and on an established system, at least as early as 
the fourth century, has been shewn to follow from plain 
historical fact in the tenth chapter of the Twelve Last 
Verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, to which the reader is referred 
for more detailed information. Cyril, at Jerusalem,—and 
by implication, his namesake at Alexandria,—Chrysostom, 
at Antioch and at Constantinopie,—Augustine, in Africa,— 
all four expressly witness to the circumstance. In other 
words, there is found to have been at least at that time 
fully established throughout the Churches of Christendom 
a Lectionary, which seems to have been essentially one and 
the same in the West and in the East. That it must have 
been of even Apostolic antiquity may be inferred from 
several considerations}. For example, Marcion, in A. D. 140, 
would hardly have constructed an Evangelistarium and 
Apostolicon of his own, as we learn from Epiphanius *, if he 
had not been induced by the Lectionary System prevailing 
around him to form a counterplan of teaching upon the 
same model. ] 

§ 2. 

Indeed, the high antiquity of the Church’s Lectionary 
System is inferred with certainty from many a textual 
phenomenon with which students of Textual Science are 

It may be helpful to a beginner if I introduce to his 
notice the class of readings to be discussed in the present 
chapter, by inviting his attention to the first words of the 
Gospel for St. Philip and St. James’ Day in our own English 
Book of Common Prayer,—‘And JESUS said unto His 

* In the absence of materials supplied by the Dean upon what was his own 
special subject, I have thought best to extract the above sentences from the 

Twelve Last Verses, p. 207. The next illustration is his own, though in my 
words, ak ese 


disciples.’ Those words he sees at a glance are undeniably 
nothing else but an Ecclesiastical accretion to the Gospel,— 
words which breed offence in no quarter, and occasion error 
to none. They have nevertheless stood prefixed to St. John 
xiv. I from an exceedingly remote period; for, besides 
establishing themselves in every Lectionary of the ancient 
Church!, they are found in Cod. D*—in copies of the Old 
Latin? as the Vercellensis, Corbeiensis, Aureus, Bezae,— 
and in copies of the Vulgate. They may be of the second 
or third, they must be as old as the fourth century. It 
is evident that it wants but a very little for those words 
to have established their claim to a permanent place in 
the Text. Readings just as slenderly supported have been 
actually adopted before now +. 

I proceed to cite another instance; and here the success 
of an ordinary case of Lectionary licence will be perceived 
to have been complete: for besides recommending itself to 
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort, 
the blunder in question has established itself in the pages 
of the Revised Version. Reference is made to an alteration 
of the Text occurring in certain copies of Acts iii. 1, which 
will be further discussed below ®. When it has been stated 
that these copies are NABCG,—the Vulgate,—the two 
Egyptian versions,—besides the Armenian,—and the 
Ethiopic,—it will be admitted that the Ecclesiastical prac- 
tice which has resulted in so widespread a reading, must 
be primitive indeed. To some persons such a formidable 

1 efrev 5 Kiptos rois éavTod padnrais* pr TapacoésOu. 

2 not emev Tors pabnras avrov. The same Codex (D) also prefixes to 
St. Luke xvi. 19 the Ecclesiastical formula—ecrey de xa: erepay mapaBoAny. 

3 ¢ Et ait discipulis suis, non turbetur? 

* E.g. the words xal Aéyet abrois eiphyvn bpiv have been omitted by Tisch. 
and rejected by W.-Hort from St. Luke xxiv. 36 om the sole authority of D and 
five copies of the Old Latin. Again, on the same sorry evidence, the words 
mpookuvnoavres avtéy have been omitted or rejected by the same critics from 
St. Luke xxiv. 52. In both instances the expressions are also branded with 

doubt in the R. V. 
° Pp. 78-80. 


array of evidence may seem conclusive in favour of any 
reading: but it can only seem so to those who do not 
realize the weight of counter-testimony. 

But by far the most considerable injury which has 
resulted to the Gospel from this cause is the suspicion 
which has alighted in certain quarters on the last twelve 
verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark. [Those verses 
made up by themselvesa complete Lection. The preceding 
Lection, which was used on the Second Sunday after 
Easter, was closed with the Liturgical note ‘ The End,’ or 
TO TEAOC, occurring after the eighth verse. What more 
probable, nay, more certain result could there be, than that 
some scribe should mistake the end of the Lection for the 
end of St. Mark’s Gospel, if the last leaf should chance to 
have been torn off, and should then transcribe no more! ? 
How natural that St. Mark should express himself ina more 
condensed and abrupt style than usual. This of course is 
only put forward as an explanation, which leaves the 
notion of another writer and a later date unnecessary. If 
it can be improved upon, so much the better. Candid 
critics ought to study Dean Burgon’s elaborate chapter 
already referred to before rejecting it.] 

§ 3. 

And there probably does not exist, in the whole compass 
of the Gospel, a more interesting instance of this than is 
furnished by the words efwe dé 6 Kvpuos, in St. Luke vii. 31. 
This is certainly derived from the Lectionaries; being 
nothing else but the formula with which it was customary 
to introduce the lection that begins at this place. Ac- 
cordingly, only one out of forty copies which have been 
consulted for the purpose contains them. But the circum- 
stance of interest remains to be stated. When these four 

* See Traditional Text, Appendix VII. 


unauthorized words have been thus got rid of, the important 
discovery is made that the two preceding verses (verses 28 
and 29) must needs form a part of our LORD’s discourse,— 
which it is perceived flows on unbroken from v. 24 to v. 35. 
This has been seen already by some’, though denied by 
others. But the fact does not admit of rational doubt ; 
though it is certainly not as yet generally known. It is 
not generally known, I mean, that the Church has recovered 
a piece of knowledge with which she was once familiar ?, 
but which for many centuries she has forgotten, viz. that 
thirty-two words which she supposed to be those of the 
Evangelist are in reality those of her LORD. 

Indeed, when the expressions are considered, it is per- 
ceived that this account of them must needs be the true 
one. Thus, we learn from the 24th verse that our 
SAVIOUR was at this time addressing ‘the crowds’ or 
‘multitudes.’ But the four classes specified in verses 29, 30, 
cannot reasonably be thought to be the Evangelist’s analysis 
of those crowds. In fact what is said of ‘the Pharisees and 
Lawyers’ in ver. 30 is clearly not a remark made by the 
Evangelist on the reception which our SAVIOUR’S words 
were receiving at the hands of his auditory; but our 
SAVIOUR’S own statement of the reception which His 
Forerunner’s preaching had met with at the hands of the 
common people and the publicans on the one hand,—the 
Pharisees and the Scribes on the other. Hence the in- 
ferential particle ojy in the 31st verse; and the use in 
ver. 35 of the same verb (édcxaré6) which the Divine 
Speaker had employed in ver. 29: whereby He takes up 
His previous statement while He applies and enforces it. 

Another specimen of unauthorized accretion originating 
in the same way is found a little farther on. In St. Luke 

' Bp. C. Wordsworth. But Alford, Westcott and Hort, doubt it. 
? Thus Codex & actually interpolates at this place the words—ov«ér: éxeivais 
éA€yero, GAA Tois pabnrais. Tisch. ad Joc. 


ix. 1 (‘And having called together His twelve Disciples’), the 
words pabntas atrod are confessedly spurious: being con- 
demned by nearly every known cursive and uncial. Their 
presence in the meantime is fully accounted for by the 
adjacent rubrical direction how the lesson is to be intro- 
duced: viz. ‘At that time JESUS having called together 
His twelve Disciples.’ Accordingly we are not surprised to 
find the words 6 "Incots also thrust into a few of the MSS.: 
though we are hardly prepared to discover that the words of 
the Peshitto, besides the Latin and Cureton’s Syriac, are 
disfigured in the same way. The admirers of ‘the old 
uncials’ will learn with interest that, instead of pa@nras 
avtob, NC with LX AZ and a choice assortment of cursives 
exhibit dzooréAovs,—being supported in this manifestly 
spurious reading by the best copies of the Old Latin, the 
Vulgate, Gothic, Harkleian, Bohairic, and a few other 

Indeed, it is surprising what a fertile source of corruption 
Liturgical usage has proved. Every careful student of the 
Gospels remembers that St. Matthew describes our LORD’S 
first and second missionary journey in very nearly the same 
words. The former place (iv. 23) ending kal tacav padaxiay 
€v T® Aaw used to conclude the lesson for the second Sunday 
after Pentecost,—the latter (ix. 35) ending kal macav padaxtav 
occupies the same position in the Gospel for the seventh 
Sunday. It will not seem strange to any one who considers 
the matter, that éy 7» Aag@ has in consequence not only 
found its way into ix. 35, but has established itself there 
very firmly: and that from a very early time. The spurious 
words are first met with in the Codex Sinaiticus 1. 

But sometimes corruptions of this class are really per- 
plexing. Thus & testifies to the existence of a short 
additional clause (kat woAAol ijxoAovOnoav aire) at the end, 

: Cyril Alex. (four times) and the Verona Codex (b), besides L and a few other 
copies, even append the same familiar words to «al macay padaxiay in St. Matt. x. 1. 


as some critics say, of the same 35th verse. Are we not 
rather to regard the words as the beginning of ver. 36, and 
as being nothing else but the liturgical introduction to the 
lection for the Twelve Apostles, which follows (ix. 36—x. 8), 
and whose Festival falls on the 3oth June? Whatever its 
origin, this confessedly spurious accretion to the Text, 
which exists besides only in L and six cursive copies, must 
needs be of extraordinary antiquity, being found in the two 
oldest copies of the Old Latin :—a sufficient indication, by 
the way, of the utter insufficiency of such an amount of 
evidence for the genuineness of any reading. 

This is the reason why, in certain of the oldest documents 
accessible, such a strange amount of discrepancy is dis- 
coverable in the text of the first words of St. Luke x. 25 
(kal (dod vowxds tis avéorn, exmetpdtwy airdv, Kat déywr). 
Many of the Latin copies preface this with e¢ aec eo dicente. 
Now, the established formula of the lectionaries here is,— 
vouixds tis mpoon\Oev tO *I., which explains why the Cure- 
tonian, the Lewis, with 33, ‘the queen of the cursives,’ as 
their usual leader in aberrant readings is absurdly styled, so 
read the place: while D, with one copy of the Old Latin, 
stands alone in exhibiting,—dvéorn 5€ tis vowexds. Four 
Codexes (NBLZ) with the Curetonian omit the second «ai 
which is illegible in the Lewis. To read this place in its 
purity you have to take up any ordinary cursive copy. 

§ 4. 

Take another instance. St. Mark xv. 28 has been 
hitherto read in all Churches as follows :—‘ And the Scrip- 
ture was fulfilled, which saith, “And He was numbered 
with the transgressors.”’ In these last days however the 
discovery is announced that every word of this is an un- 
authorized addition to the inspired text. Griesbach indeed 
only marks the verse as probably spurious ; while Tregelles 
is content to enclose it in brackets. But Alford, Tischen- 



dorf, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers eject the 
words kat émAnpéOn  ypadi 7) A€yovoa, Kai peTa Avopwv 
édoyicén from the text altogether. What can be the reason 
for so extraordinary a proceeding? 

Let us not be told by Schulz (Griesbach’s latest editor) 
that ‘the quotation is not in Mark’s manner; that the 
formula which introduces it is John’s: and that it seems to 
be a gloss taken from Luke xxii. 37.’ This is not criticism 
but dictation—imagination, not argument. Men who so 
write forget that they are assuming the very point which 
they are called upon to prove. 

Now it happens that all the Uncials but six and an 
immense majority of the Cursive copies contain the words 
before us :—that besides these, the Old Latin, the Syriac, the 
Vulgate, the Gothic and the Bohairic versions, all concur 
in exhibiting them :—that the same words are expressly 
recognized by the Sectional System of Eusebius ;—having 

: ‘ 6 bait yeh 
a section a ize. ~~) to themselves—which is the weightiest 

sanction that Father had it in his power to give to words of 
Scripture. So are they also recognized by the Syriac 

: 6 ponte he . 
sectional system (=), which is diverse from that of Eusebius 

and independent of it. What then is to be set against such 
a weight of ancient evidence? The fact that the follow- 
ing six Codexes are without this 28th verse, NABCDX, 
together with the Sahidic and Lewis. The notorious 
Codex k (Bobiensis) is the only other ancient testimony 
producible ; to which Tischendorf adds ‘about forty-five 
cursive copies. Will it be seriously pretended that this 
evidence for omitting ver. 28 from St. Mark’s Gospel can 
compete with the evidence for retaining it? 

Let it not be once more insinuated that we set numbers 
before antiquity. Codex D is of the sixth century ; Cod. X 
not older than the ninth: and not one of the four Codexes 
which remain is so old, within perhaps two centuries, as 


either the Old Latin or the Peshitto versions. We have 
Eusebius and Jerome’s Vulgate as witnesses on the same 
side, besides the Gothic version, which represents a Codex 
probably as old as either. To these witnesses must be 
added Victor of Antioch, who commented on St. Mark's 
Gospel before either A or C were written?. 

It will be not unreasonably asked by those who have 
learned to regard whatever is found in B or N as oracular,— 
‘But is it credible that on a point like this such authorities 
as NABCD should all be in error?’ 

It is not only credible, I answer, but a circumstance of 
which we meet with so many undeniable examples that it 
ceases to be even a matter of surprise. On the other hand, 
what is to be thought of the credibility that on a point like 
this all the ancient versions (except the Sahidic) should 
have conspired to mislead mankind? And further, on what 
intelligible principle is the consent of all the other uncials, 
and the whole mass of cursives, to be explained, if this 
verse of Scripture be indeed spurious? 

I know that the rejoinder will be as follows :—‘ Yes, but 
if the ten words in dispute really are part of the inspired 
verity, how is their absence from the earliest Codexes to be 
accounted for?’ Now it happens that for once I am able 
to assign the reason. But I do so under protest, for I insist 
that to point out the source of the mistakes in our oldest 
Codexes is no part of a critic's business. It would not only 
prove an endless, but also a hopeless task. This time, 
however, I am able to explain. 

If the reader will take the trouble to inquire at the 
Bibliothéque at Paris for a Greek Codex numbered ‘71,’ an 
Evangelium will be put into his hands which differs from 
any that I ever met with in giving singularly minute and 
full rubrical directions. At the end of St. Mark xv. 27, he 
will read as follows :—‘ When thou readest the sixth Gospel 

1 Tnvestigate Possinus, 345, 346, 348. 


of the Passion,—also when thou readest the second Gospel 
of the Vigil of Good Friday,—stop here: skip verse 28: 
then go on at verse 29.’ The inference from this is so 
obvious, that it would be to abuse the reader’s patience if 
I were to enlarge upon it, or even to draw it out in detail. 
Very ancient indeed must the Lectionary practice in this 
particular have been that it should leave so fatal a trace of 
its operation in our four oldest Codexes: but zt has left it?. 
The explanation is evident, the verse is plainly genuine, 
and the Codexes which leave it out are corrupt. 

One word about the evidence of the cursive copies on 
this occasion. Tischendorf says that ‘about forty-five’ of 
them are without this precious verse of Scripture. I venture 
to say that the learned critic would be puzzled to produce 
forty-five copies of the Gospels in which this verse has no 
place. But in fact his very next statement (viz. that about 
half of these are Lectionaries),—satisfactorily explains the 
matter. Just so. From every Lectionary in the world, 
for the reason already assigned, these words are away ; as 
well as in every MS. which, like B and &, has been depraved 
by the influence of the Lectionary practice. 

And now I venture to ask,—What is to be thought of 
that Revision of our Authorized Version which omits 
ver. 28 altogether; with a marginal intimation that ‘many 
ancient authorities insert it’? Would it not have been the 
course of ordinary reverence,—I was going to say of truth 
and fairness,—to leave the text unmolested: with a mar- 
ginal memorandum that just ‘a very few ancient authorities 
leave it out’? 

§ 5. 

A gross depravation of the Text resulting from this 
cause, which nevertheless has imposed on several critics, 
* It is surprising to find so great an expert as Griesbach in the last year of 

his life so entirely misunderstanding this subject. See his Comment. Crit. 
Part ii. p. 190. ‘Nec ulla... debuerint.’ 


as has been already said, is furnished by the first words of 
Acts iii. The most ancient witness accessible, namely the 
Peshitto, confirms the usual reading of the place, which is 
also the text of the cursives: viz. Ea) 16 atro 8 [lérpos kal 
*Iwdvyyns x.t.A. So the Harkleian and Bede. So Codex E. 

The four oldest of the six available uncials conspire 
however in representing the words which immediately 
precede in the following unintelligible fashion :—6 5€ Kvpuos 
mpooetider Tovs sw Copevovs Kal’ ipépay emi 7d adtd. Tlérpos be 
k.7.A. How is it to be thought that this strange and vapid 
presentment of the passage had its beginning? It results, 
I answer, from the ecclesiastical practice of beginning 
a fresh lection at the name of ‘ Peter,’ prefaced by the usual 
formula ‘In those days.’ It is accordingly usual to find 
the liturgical word dpyj—indicative of the beginning of 
a lection,—thrust in between éml 76 atrd 6€ and [lérpos. At 
a yet earlier period I suppose some more effectual severance 
of the text was made in that place, which unhappily misled 
some early scribe’. And so it came to pass that in the first 
instance the place stood thus: 6 8€ Kvpios zpocerider rods 
cwCopnevovs Kal? jpépav tH exxAnola éxl rd adrdé,—which was 
plainly intolerable. 

What I am saying will commend itself to any unpreju- 
diced reader when it has been stated that Cod. D in this 
place actually reads as follows :—xa0nyépav éxl 10 adro év TH 
exkAnola. “Ev 62 rats ipepats tavrats [lérpos x.7.A.: the scribe 
with simplicity both giving us the liturgical formula with 
which it was usual to introduce the Gospel for the Friday 
after Easter, and permitting us to witness the perplexity 
with which the evident surplusage of rH éxxAnola éml rd adrd 
occasioned him. He inverts those two expressions and 
thrusts in a preposition. How obvious it now was to solve 
the difficulty by getting rid of rij éxx«Anola. 

1 rods aw lopévous KaOnuépay év TH exndnoig. emt 7d adrd Se [TH F THE 
diakivHciywou] TWérpos nal "Iwavyns, «.7.A. Addit. 16,184, fol. 152 6. 


It does not help the adverse case to shew that the 
Vulgate as well as the copy of Cyril of Alexandria are 
disfigured with the same corrupt reading as NABC. It 
does but prove how early and how widespread is this 
depravation of the Text. But the indirect proof thus 
afforded that the actual Lectionary System must needs 
date from a period long anterior to our oldest Codexes is 
a far more important as well as a more interesting inference. 
In the meantime I suspect that it was in Western Christen- 
dom that this corruption of the text had its beginning : for 
proof is not wanting that the expression éml 76 airé seemed 
hard to the Latins?. 

Hence too the omission of wadw from NBD (St. Matt. 
xiii. 43). A glance at the place in an actual Codex? will 
explain the matter to a novice better than a whole page of 
writing :— 

akoveT@. TeAos 

Taw. apxyn. etmev 0 Kuptos tnv mapaBoAnv tavtTnv. 

Opova eotuv K.T.A. 
The word wad, because it stands between the end (reAos) 
of the lesson for the sixth Thursday and the beginning 
(apxn) of the first Friday after Pentecost, got left out 
[though every one acquainted with Gospel MSS. knows 
that dpx7 and réAos were often inserted in the text]. The 
second of these two lessons begins with dyoia [because 
mad at the beginning of a lesson is not wanted]. Here 
then is a singular token of the antiquity of the Lectionary 
System in the Churches of the East: as well as a proof of 
the untrustworthy character of Codd. NBD. The discovery 
that they are supported this time by copies of the Old 
Latin (ace ff!? g'?k 1), Vulgate, Curetonian, Bohairic, 
Ethiopic, does but further shew that such an amount of 

* Bede, Retr. 111. D (add. of éy 7. ée«d.). Brit. Mus. Addit. 16, 184. fol. 
152 6. Vulgate. 

* So the place stands in Evan. 64. The liturgical notes are printed in a 
smaller type, for distinction. 


evidence in and by itself is wholly insufficient to determine 
the text of Scripture. 

When therefore I see Tischendorf, in the immediately 
preceding verse (xiii. 43) on the sole authority of NB and 
a few Latin copies, omitting the word dxove.w,—and again 
in the present verse on very similar authority (viz. ND, 
Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Curetonian, Lewis, Bohairic, 
together with five cursives of aberrant character) trans- 
posing the order of the words mavra dca exer téde1,—I can 
but reflect on the utterly insecure basis on which the 
Revisers and the school which they follow would remodel 
the inspired Text. 

It is precisely in this way and for the selfsame reason, 
that the clause cat éAvqOncav opddpa (St. Matt. xvii. 23) 
comes to be omitted in K and several other copies. The 
previous lesson ends at éyep@jcerar,—the next lesson begins 
at mpoondOor. 

§ 6. 

Indeed, the Ancient Liturgy of the Church has frequently 
exercised a corrupting influence on the text of Scripture. 
Having elsewhere considered St. Luke’s version of the 
Lorpv’s Prayer’, I will in this place discuss the genuineness 
of the doxology with which the LoRD’s Prayer concludes 
in St. Matt. vi. 13 7,—6ri ood éorw 7 Bactreia Kal  dtvams 
kal 1) 66£a eis Tovs aiGvas. dunv,—words which for 360 years 
have been rejected by critical writers as spurious, notwith- 
standing St. Paul’s unmistakable recognition of them in 
2 Tim. iv. 18,—which alone, one would have thought, 
should have sufficed to preserve them from molestation. 

The essential note of primitive antiquity at all events 
these fifteen words enjoy in perfection, being met with in 
all copies of the Peshitto:—and this is a far weightier 
consideration than the fact that they are absent from most 
of the Latin copies. Even of these however four (k fg! q) 

1 The Revision Revised, 34-6. 2 See The Traditional Text, p. 104. 

II. G 


recognize the doxology, which is also found in Cureton’s 
Syriac and the Sahidic version; the Gothic, the Ethiopic, 
Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Harkleian, Palestinian, 
Erpenius’ Arabic, and the Persian of Tawos; as well as in 
the Avday7 (with variations); Apostolical Constitutions 
(iii, 18—vii. 25 with variations); in St. Ambrose (De Sacr. 
vi. 5. 24), Caesarius (Dial. i. 29). Chrysostom comments 
on the words without suspicion, and often quotes them 
(In Orat. Dom., also see Hom. in Matt. xiv. 13): as does 
Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. iv. 24). See also Opus Imper- 
fectum (Hom. in Matt. xiv), Theophylact on this place, 
and Euthymius Zigabenus (in Matt. vi. 13 and C. Massal. 
Anath. 7). And yet their true claim to be accepted as 
inspired is of course based on the consideration that they 
are found in ninety-nine out of a hundred of the Greek 
copies, including ® and & of the end of the fifth and begin- 
ning of the sixth centuries. What then is the nature of 
the adverse evidence with which they have to contend and 
which is supposed to be fatal to their claims? 

Four uncial MSS. (NBDZ), supported by five cursives of 
bad character (1, 17 which gives dujv, 118, 130, 2c9), and, 
as we have seen, all the Latin copies but four, omit these 
words; which, it is accordingly assumed, must have found 
their way surreptitiously into the text of all the other 
copies in existence. But let me ask,—Is it at all likely, or 
rather is it any way credible, that in a matter like this, 
all the MSS. in the world but nine should have become 
corrupted? No hypothesis is needed to account for one 
more instance of omission in copies which exhibit a muti- 
lated text in every page. But how will men pretend to 
explain an interpolation universal as the present; which 
may be traced as far back as the second century ; which has 
established itself without appreciable variety of reading in 
all the MSS.; which has therefore found its way from the 
earliest time into every part of Christendom; is met with 


in all the Lectionaries, and in all the Greek Liturgies; and 
has so effectually won the Church’s confidence that to this 
hour it forms part of the public and private devotions of 
the faithful all over the world? 

One and the same reply has been rendered to this inquiry 
ever since the days of Erasmus. A note in the Complu-. 
tensian Polyglott (1514) expresses it with sufficient accu- 
racy. ‘In the Greek copies, after And deliver us from evil, 
follows For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the 
glory, for ever. But it is to be noted that in the Greek 
liturgy, after the choir has said And deliver us from evil, it 
is the Priest who responds as above: and those words, 
according to the Greeks, the priest alone may pronounce. 
This makes it probable that the words in question are no 
integral part of the LORD’S Prayer: but that certain 
copyists inserted them in error, supposing, from their use 
in the liturgy, that they formed part of the text.’ In other 
words, they represent that men’s ears had grown so fatally 
familiar with this formula from its habitual use in the 
liturgy, that at last they assumed it to be part and parcel of 
the LoRD’s Prayer. The same statement has been repeated 
ad nauseam by ten generations of critics for 360 years. 
The words with which our SAVIOUR closed His pattern 
prayer are accordingly rejected as an interpolation resulting 
from the liturgical practice of the primitive Church. And 
this slipshod account of the matter is universally ac- 
quiesced in by learned and unlearned readers alike at the 
present day. 

From an examination of above fifty ancient oriental 
liturgies, it is found then that though the utmost variety 
prevails among them, yet that ot one of them exhibits the 
evangelical formula as it stands in St. Matt. vi. 13; while in 
some instances the divergences of expression are even extra- 
ordinary. Subjoined is what may perhaps be regarded as the 
typical eucharistic formula, derived from the liturgy which 



passes as Chrysostom’s. Precisely the same form recurs in 
the office which is called after the name of Basil : and it is 
essentially reproduced by Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of 
Jerusalem, and pseudo-Caesarius; while something very 
like it is found to have been in use in more of the Churches 
of the East. 

‘For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, 
Father, Son and Holy Ghost, now and always and for ever 
and ever. Amen. 

But as every one sees at a glance, such a formula as the 
foregoing,—with its ever-varying terminology of praise,—its 
constant reference to the blessed Trinity,—its habitual viv 
kal dei,—and its invariable es rods alévas tév aidver, (which 
must needs be of very high antiquity, for it is mentioned 
by Irenaeus!, and may be as old as 2 Tim. iv. 18 itself ;)— 
the doxology, I say, which formed part of the Church’s 
liturgy, though transcribed 10,000 times, could never by 
possibility have resulted in the unvarying doxology found 
in MSS. of St. Matt. vi. 13,—‘ For thine ts the kingdom, 
and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. 

On the other hand, the inference from a careful survey 
of so many Oriental liturgies is inevitable. The universal 
prevalence of a doxology of some sort at the end of the 
Lorp’s Prayer; the general prefix ‘for thine’; the pre- 
vailing mention therein of ‘the kingdom and the power 
and the glory’; the invariable reference to Eternity :—all 
this constitutes a weighty corroboration of the genuineness 
of the form in St. Matthew. Eked out with a confession of 
faith in the Trinity, and otherwise amplified as piety or 
zeal for doctrinal purity suggested, every liturgical formula 
of the kind is clearly derivable from the form of words in 
St. Matt. vi. 13. In no conceivable way, on the other 
hand, could that briefer formula have resulted from the 

* GAAd Kal Hyds én rijs Edyapotias A€éyovras, ‘ eis Tods aldvas Tay aidvwr,’ 
«.t.4. Contra Haer. lib. i. c. 3. 


practice of the ancient Church. The thing, I repeat, is 
simply impossible. 

What need to point out in conclusion that the Church's 
peculiar method of reciting the LORD’s Prayer in the public 
liturgy does notwithstanding supply the obvious and suf- 
ficient explanation of all the adverse phenomena of the case ? 
It was the invariable practice from the earliest time for the 
Choir to break off at the words ‘ But deliver us from evil.’ 
They never pronounced the doxology. The doxology 
must for that reason have been omitted by the critical 
owner of the archetypal copy of St. Matthew from which 
nine extant Evangelia, Origen, and the Old Latin version 
originally derived their text. This is the sum of the 
matter. There can be no simpler solution of the alleged 
difficulty. That Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose recognize 
no more of the LorpD’s Prayer than they found in their 
Latin copies, cannot create surprise. The wonder would 
have been if they did. 

Much stress has been laid on the silence of certain of the 
Greek Fathers concerning the doxology although they 
wrote expressly on the LORD’s Prayer; as Origen, Gregory 
of Nyssa’, Cyril of Jerusalem, Maximus. Those who have 
attended most to such subjects will however bear me most 
ready witness, that it is never safe to draw inferences of 
the kind proposed from the silence of the ancients. What 
if they regarded a doxology, wherever found, as hardly 
a fitting subject for exegetical comment? But however 
their silence is to be explained, it is at least quite certain 
that the reason of it is not because their copies of St. 
Matthew were unfurnished with the doxology. Does any 
one seriously imagine that in A.D. 650, when Maximus 
wrote, Evangelia were, in this respect, in a different state 
from what they are at present ? 

1 But the words of Gregory of Nyssa are doubtful. See Scrivener, Introduc- 
tion, ii. p. 325, note I. 


The sum of what has been offered may be thus briefly 
stated :—The textual perturbation observable at St. Matt. 
vi. 13 is indeed due to a liturgical cause, as the critics 
suppose. But then it is found that not the great bulk of 
the Evangelia, but only Codd. NBDZ, 1, 17, 118, 130, 209, 
have been victims of the corrupting influence. As usual, 
I say, it is the few, not the many copies, which have been 
led astray. Let the doxology at the end of the LoRD’s 
Prayer be therefore allowed to retain its place in the text 
without further molestation. Let no profane hands be any 
more laid on these fifteen precious words of the LORD JESUS 

There yet remains something to be said on the same 
subject for the edification of studious readers; to whom 
the succeeding words are specially commended. They are 
requested to keep their attention sustained, until they have 
read what immediately follows. 

The history of the rejection of these words is in a high 
degree instructive. It dates from 1514, when the Com- 
plutensian editors, whilst admitting that the words were 
found in their Greek copies, banished them from the text 
solely in deference to the Latin version. In a marginal 
annotation they started the hypothesis that the doxology 
is a liturgical interpolation. But how is that possible, 
seeing that the doxology is commented on by Chrysostom ? 
‘We presume, they say, ‘that this corruption of the 
original text must date from an antecedent period.’ The 
same adverse sentence, supported by the same hypothesis, 
was reaffirmed by Erasmus, and on the same grounds; 
but in his edition of the N.T. he suffered the doxology to 
stand. As the years have rolled out, and Codexes DBZ 
have successively come to light, critics have waxed 
bolder and bolder in giving their verdict. First, Grotius, 
Hammond, Walton ; then Mill and Grabe; next Bengel, 
Wetstein, Griesbach ; lastly Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, 


Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers have 
denounced the precious words as spurious. 

But how does it appear that tract of time has strengthened 
the case against the doxology ? Since 1514, scholars have 
become acquainted with the Peshitto version ; which by its 
emphatic verdict, effectually disposes of the evidence borne 
by all but three of the Old Latin copies. The A:day7 of the 
first or second century, the Sahidic version of the third 
century, the Apostolic Constitutions (2), follow on the same 
side. Next, in the fourth century come Chrysostom, 
Ambrose, ps.-Caesarius, the Gothic version. After that 
Isidore, the Ethiopic, Cureton’s Syriac. The Harkleian, 
Armenian, Georgian, and other versions, with Chrysostom 
(2), the Opus Imperfectum, Theophylact, and Euthymius 
(2), bring up the rear’. Does any one really suppose 
that two Codexes of the fourth century (BN), which 
are even notorious for their many omissions and general 
accuracy, are any adequate set-off against such an amount 
of ancient evidence? L and 33, generally the firm allies 
of BD and the Vulgate, forsake them at St. Matt. vi. 13: 
and dispose effectually of the adverse testimony of D and 
Z, which are also balanced by ® and &. But at this 
juncture the case for rejecting the doxology breaks down : 
and when it is discovered that every other uncial and 
every other cursive in existence may be appealed to in its 
support, and that the story of its liturgical origin proves to 
be a myth,— what must be the verdict of an impartial mind 
on a survey of the entire evidence ? 

The whole matter may be conveniently restated thus :— 
Liturgical use has indeed been the cause of a depravation 
of the text at St. Matt. vi. 13; but it proves on inquiry to 
be the very few MSS.,—not the very many,—which have 
been depraved. 

1 See my Textual Guide, Appendix V. pp. 131-3 (G. Bell & Sons). I have 
increased the Dean’s list with a few additional authorities. 


Nor is any one at liberty to appeal to a yet earlier 
period than is attainable by existing liturgical evidence ; 
and to suggest that then the doxology used by the priest 
may have been the same with that which is found in the 
ordinary text of St. Matthew’s Gospel. This may have 
been the case or it may not. Meanwhile, the hypothesis, 
which fell to the ground when the statement on which it 
rested was disproved, is not now to be built up again on 
a mere conjecture. But if the fact could be ascertained,— 
and I am not at all concerned to deny that such a thing is 
possible,—I should regard it only as confirmatory of the 
genuineness of the doxology. For why should the litur- 
gical employment of the last fifteen words of the LORD’S 
Prayer be thought to cast discredit on their genuineness ? 
In the meantime, the undoubted fact, that for an indefinitely 
remote period the LORD’s Prayer was not publicly recited 
by the people further than ‘But deliver us from evil,— 
a doxology of some sort being invariably added, but pro- 
nounced by the priest alone,—this clearly ascertained fact 
is fully sufficient to account for a phenomenon so ordinary 
[found indeed so commonly throughout St. Matthew, to say 
nothing of occurrences in the other Gospels] as really not 
to require particular explanation, viz. the omission of the 
last half of St. Matthew vi. 13 from Codexes NBDZ. 




[Ir must not be imagined that all the causes of the 
depravation of the text of Holy Scripture were instinctive, 
and that mistakes arose solely because scribes were 
overcome by personal infirmity, or were unconsciously the 
victims of surrounding circumstances. There was often 
more design and method in their error. They, or those who 
directed them, wished sometimes to correct and improve 
the copy or copies before them. And indeed occasionally 
they desired to make the Holy Scriptures witness to their 
own peculiar belief. Or they had their ideas of taste, and 
did not scruple to alter passages to suit what they fancied 
was their enlightened judgement. 

Thus we can trace a tendency to bring the Four Records 
into one harmonious narrative, or at least to excise or vary 
statements in one Gospel which appeared to conflict with 
parallel statements in another. Or else, some Evangelical 
Diatessaron, or Harmony, or combined narrative now 
forgotten, exercised an influence over them, and whether 
consciously or not,—since it is difficult always to keep 
designed and unintentional mistakes apart, and we must 
not be supposed to aim at scientific exactness in the 
arrangement adopted in this analysis,—induced them to 
adopt alterations of the pure Text. 


We now advance to some instances which will severally 
and conjointly explain themselves. ] 

§ 1. 

Nothing can be more exquisitely precise than St. 
John’s way of describing an incident to which St. Mark 
(xvi. 9) only refers; viz. our LORD’S appearance to Mary 
Magdalene,—the first of His appearances after His Resur- 
rection. The reason is discoverable for every word the 
Evangelist uses :—its form and collocation. Both St. Luke 
(xxiv. 3) and previously St. Mark (xvi. 5) expressly stated 
that the women who visited the Sepulchre on the first 
Easter morning, ‘after they had entered in’ (eive\odcat), 
saw the Angels. St. John explains that at that time Mary 
was not with them. She had separated herself from their 
company ;—had gone in quest of Simon Peter and ‘the 
other disciple. When the women, their visit ended, had 
in turn departed from the Sepulchre, she was left in the 
garden alone. ‘ Mary was standing [with her face] towards 
the sepulchre weeping,—outside \.’ 

All this, singular to relate, was completely misunder- 
stood by the critics of the two first centuries. Not only 
did they identify the incident recorded in St. John xx. 11, 
12 with St. Mark xv. 5 and St. Luke xxiv. 3, 4, from 
which, as we have seen, the first-named Evangelist is careful 
to distinguish it ;—not only did they further identify both 
places with St. Matt. xxviii. 2, 3%, from which they are 

* Mapia 6é eiorjxe: mpds TO prvnpciov KAaiovea éfw (St. John xx. 11). Comp. 
the expression mpds 7d p&s in St. Luke xxii. 56. Note, that the above is not 
offered as a revised translation; but only to shew unlearned readers what the 
words of the original exactly mean. 

* Note, that in the sectional system of Eusebius according to the Greek, the 
following places are brought together :— 

(St. Matt. xxviii) (St. Mark xvi) (St. Luke xxiv) (St. John xx) 
1-4. 2-5. 1-4. I, 11, 12. 
According to the Syriac :— 
3 4 5+ 3) 45 5(2)- It, 12. 


clearly separate ;—but they considered themselves at liberty 
to tamper with the inspired text in order to bring it into 
harmony with their own convictions. Some of them 
accordingly altered pds rd pynueiov into mpds To prnyelo 
(which is just as ambiguous in Greek as ‘ a¢ the sepulchre’ 
in English’), and é£ they boldly erased. It is thus that 
Codex A exhibits the text. But in fact this depravation 
must have begun at a very remote period and prevailed 
to an extraordinary extent: for it disfigures the best copies 
of the Old Latin, (the Syriac being doubtful) : a memorable 
circumstance truly, and in a high degree suggestive. Codex 
B, to be sure, reads elotixer mpds TO pvnuelw, EE Kralovea,— 
merely transposing (with many other authorities) the last 
two words. But then Codex B substitutes €@odca for 
eloeAOodoa in St. Mark xvi. 5, in order that the second 
Evangelist may not seem to contradict St. Matt. xxviii. 
2, 3. So that, according to this view of the matter, the 
Angelic appearance was outside the sepulchre?. Codex ®&, 
on the contrary, is thorough. Not content with omitting 
é&m,—(as in the next verse it leaves out dvo, in order to 
prevent St. John xx. 12 from seeming to contradict St. 
Matt. xxviii. 2, 3, and St. Mark xvi. 5),—it stands alone in 
reading "EN to prnyefm. (C and D are lost here.) When 
will men learn that these ‘old uncials’ are zgnes fatuz,— 
not beacon lights; and admit that the texts which they 
exhibit are not only inconsistent but corrupt? 

There is no reason for distrusting the received reading of 
the present place in any particular. True, that most of the 
uncials and many of the cursives read mpos ro prynuel@ : but 
so did neither Chrysostom * nor Cyril* read the place. 
And if the Evangelist himself had so written, is it credible 

1 Consider 6 5? Térpos ciornxe mpds 7H Odpg fw (St. John xviii. 16). Has not 
this place, by the way, exerted an assimilating influence over St. John xx. 11? 

? Hesychius, gw. 51 (apud Cotelerii Eccl. Gr. Mon. iii. 43), explains St. Mark’s 

phrase év rois deg.0is as follows :—dyAovdts Tod éfwrépov omnaAaiov. 
8 viii. 513. * iv. 1079. 


that a majority of the copies would have forsaken the 
easier and more obvious, in order to exhibit the less usual 
and even slightly difficult expression? Many, by writing 
mpos TO prnwetw, betray themselves ; for they retain a sure 
token that the accusative ought to end the sentence. I am 
not concerned however just now to discuss these matters 
of detail. I am only bent on illustrating how fatal to the 
purity of the Text of the Gospels has been the desire of 
critics, who did not understand those divine compositions, 
to bring them into enforced agreement with one another. 
The sectional system of Eusebius, I suspect, is not so much 
the cause as the consequence of the ancient and inveterate 
misapprchensions which prevailed in respect of the history 
of the Resurrection. It is time however to proceed. 

§ 2. 

Those writers who overlook the corruptions which the 
text has actually experienced through a mistaken solicitude 
on the part of ancient critics to reconcile what seemed to 
them the conflicting statements of different Evangelists, 
are frequently observed to attribute to this kind of officious- 
ness expressions which are unquestionably portions of the 
genuine text. Thus, there is a general consensus amongst 
critics of the destructive school to omit the words kai tues 
ow avtais from St. Luke xxiv. 1. Their only plea is the 
testimony of NBCL and certain of the Latin copies,— 
a conjunction of authorities which, when they stand alone, 
we have already observed to bear invariably false witness. 
Indeed, before we proceed to examine the evidence, we 
discover that those four words of St. Luke are even required 
in this place. For St. Matthew (xxvii. 61), and St. Mark 
after him (xv. 47), had distinctly specified two women as 
witnesses of how and where our LoRD’s body was laid. 
Now they were the same women apparently who prepared 
the spices and ointment and hastened therewith at break of 


day to the sepulchre. Had we therefore only St. Matthew's 
Gospel we should have assumed that ‘ the ointment-bearers,’ 
for so the ancients called them, were but two (St. Matt. 
xxviii. 1). That they were at least three, even St. Mark 
shews by adding to their number Salome (xvi. 1). But in 
fact their company consisted of more than four; as St. Luke 
explains when he states that it was the same little band 
of holy women who had accompanied our SAVIOUR out 
of Galilee (xxiii. 55, cf. viii. 2). In anticipation therefore of 
what he will have to relate in ver. 10, he says in ver. 1, 
‘and certain with them.’ 

But how, I shall be asked, would you explain the omis- 
sion of these words which to yourself seem necessary ? 
And after insisting that one is never bound to explain how 
the text of any particular passage came to be corrupted, 
I answer, that these words were originally ejected from the 
text in order to bring St. Luke’s statement into harmony 
with that of the first Evangelist, who mentions none but 
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses. 
The proof is that four of the same Latin copies which are 
for the omission of xaé tives obv adtais are observed to begin 
St. Luke xxiii. 55 as follows,—xataxoArovdjcaca 8 ATO 
yuvaixes. The same fabricated reading is found in D. It 
exists also in the Codex which Eusebius employed when he 
wrote his Demonstratio Evangelica. Instead therefore of 
wearying the reader with the evidence, which is simply 
overwhelming, for letting the text alone, I shall content 
myself with inviting him to notice that the tables have 
been unexpectedly turned on our opponents. There is 
indeed found to have been a corruption of the text here- 
abouts, and of the words just now under discussion ; but it 
belongs to an exceedingly remote age; and happily the 
record of it survives at this day only in NBCDL and certain 
of the Old Latin copies. Calamitous however it is, that 
what the Church has long since deliberately refused to part 


with should, at the end of so many centuries, by Lachmann 
and Tregelles and Tischendorf, by Alford and Westcott 
and Hort, be resolutely thrust out of place; and indeed 
excluded from the Sacred Text by a majority of the 

[A very interesting instance of such Harmonistic In- 
fluence may be found in the substitution of ‘wine’ (ofvor) 
for vinegar (dos), respecting which the details are given in 
the second Appendix to the Traditional Text. ] 

[Observe yet another instance of harmonizing propen- 
sities in the Ancient Church. ] 

In St. Luke’s Gospel iv. 1-13, no less than six copies of 
the Old Latin versions (bc f g'1q) besides Ambrose (Com. 
St. Luke, 1340), are observed to transpose the second and 
third temptations ; introducing verses 9-12 between verses 
4 and 5; in order to make the history of the Temptation 
as given by St. Luke correspond with the account given by 
St. Matthew. 

The scribe of the Vercelli Codex (a) was about to do the 
same thing; but he checked himself when he had got as far 
as ‘the pinnacle of the temple,—which he seems to have 
thought as good a scene for the third temptation as ‘a high 
mountain,’ and so left it. 

§ 3. 

A favourite, and certainly a plausible, method of account- 
ing for the presence of unauthorized matter in MSS. is to 
suggest that, in the first instance, it probably existed only 
in the shape of a marginal gloss, which through the inad- 
vertence of the scribes, in process of time, found its way 
into the sacred text. That in this way some depravations 
of Scripture may possibly have arisen, would hardly I pre- 
sume be doubted. But I suspect that the hypothesis is 
generally a wholly mistaken one; having been imported 
into this subject-matter (like many other notions which are 


quite out of place here), from the region of the Classics,— 
where (as we know) the phenomenon is even common. 
Especially is this hypothesis resorted to (I believe) in order 
to explain those instances of assimilation which are so 
frequently to be met with in Codd. B and &. 

Another favourite way of accounting for instances of 
assimilation, is by taking for granted that the scribe was 
thinking of the parallel or the cognate place. And cer- 
tainly (as before) there is no denying that just as the familiar 
language of a parallel place in another Gospel presents 
itself unbidden to the memory of a reader, so may it have 
struck a copyist also with sufficient vividness to persuade 
him to write, not the words which he saw before him, but 
the words which he remembered. All this is certainly 

But I strongly incline to the suspicion that this is not by 
any means the right way to explain the phenomena under 
discussion. I am of opinion that such depravations of the 
text were in the first instance intentional. I do not mean 
that they were introduced with any sinister motive. My 
meaning is that [there was a desire to remove obscurities, 
or to reconcile incongruous passages, or generally to 
improve the style of the authors, and thus to add to the 
merits of the sacred writings, instead of detracting from 
them. Such a mode of dealing with the holy deposit 
evinced no doubt a failure in the part of those who adopted 
it to understand the nature of the trust committed to the 
Church, just as similar action at the present day does in 
the case of such as load the New Testament with ‘ various 
readings,’ and illustrate it as they imagine with what are 
really insinuations of doubt, in the way that they prepare 
an edition of the classics for the purpose of enlarging and 
sharpening the minds of youthful students. There was. 
intention, and the intention was good: but it was none the 
less productive of corruption. | 


I suspect that if we ever obtain access to a specimen of 
those connected Gospel narratives called Diatessarons, 
which are known to have existed anciently in the Church, 
we shall be furnished with a clue to a problem which at 
present is shrouded in obscurity—and concerning the 
solution of which, with such instruments of criticism as we 
at present possess, we can do little else but conjecture. 
I allude to those many occasions on which the oldest docu- 
ments extant, in narrating some incident which really 
presents no special difficulty, are observed to diverge into 
hopeless variety of expression. An example of the thing 
referred to will best explain my meaning. Take then the 
incident of our LORD’S paying tribute,—set down in St. 
Matt. xvii. 25, 26. 

The received text exhibits—‘ And when he [Peter] had 
entered (dre eic#AGev) into the house, JESUS was beforehand 
with him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom 
do earthly kings take toll or tribute? of their sons or of 
strangers?’ Here, for dre eiojAOev, Codex B (but no other 
uncial) substitutes €A@évra: Codex N (but no other) eived- 
Odvta: Codex D (but no other) eioeAOdvt.: Codex C (but 
no other) dre 7Adov: while a fifth lost copy certainly con- 
tained eloeAOdvTwy ; and a sixth, éAddvtwy airav. A very 
fair specimen this, be it remarked in passing, of the con- 
cordia discors which prevails in the most ancient uncial 
copies’. How is all this discrepancy to be accounted for ? 

The Evangelist proceeds,—‘ Peter saith unto Him (Aéye 
ait» 6 Ilérpos), Of strangers.’ These four words C retains, 
but continues—‘Now when he had said, Of strangers’ 
(Eindvros 8% adtod, aad Tv &Adorplwv) ;—which unauthorized 
clause, all but the word airod, is found also in &, but in no 
other uncial. On the other hand, for Aéye: air@ 6 Térpos, 
X (alone of uncials) substitutes ‘O 8 épn: and B (also alone 

Traditional Text, pp. 81-8. 


of uncials) substitutes Eizéyros 5¢,—and then proceeds ex- 
actly like the received text : while D merely omits 6 [érpos. 
Again I ask,—How is all this discrepancy to be explained !? 

As already hinted, I suspect that it was occasioned in 
the first instance by the prevalence of harmonized Gospel 
narratives. In no more loyal way can I account for the 
perplexing phenomenon already described, which is of 
perpetual recurrence in such documents as Codexes BND, 
Cureton’s Syriac, and copies of the Old Latin version. It 
is well known that at a very remote period some eminent 
persons occupied themselves in constructing such exhi- 
bitions of the Evangelical history: and further, that these 
productions enjoyed great favour, and were in general use. 
As for their contents,—the notion we form to ourselves of 
a Diatessaron, is that it aspired to be a weaving of the 
fourfold Gospel into one continuous narrative: and we 
suspect that in accomplishing this object, the writer was by 
no means scrupulous about retaining the precise words of 
the inspired original. He held himself at liberty, on the 
contrary, (2) to omit what seemed to himself superfluous 
clauses: (0) to introduce new incidents: (c) to supply pic- 
turesque details: (d) to give a new turn to the expression : 
(e) to vary the construction at pleasure: (f) even slightly 
to paraphrase. Compiled after some such fashion as I have 
been describing, at a time too when the preciousness of the 
inspired documents seems to have been but imperfectly. 
apprehended,—the works I speak of, recommended by 
their graphic interest, and sanctioned by a mighty name, 
must have imposed upon ordinary readers. Incautious 

1 I am tempted to inquire,—By virtue of what verifying faculty do Lachmann 
and Tregelles on the former occasion adopt the reading of 8; Tischendorf, 
Alford, W. and Hort, the reading of B? On the second occasion, I venture to 
ask,—What enabled the Revisers, with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, West- 
cott and Hort, to recognize in a reading, which is the peculiar property of B, 
the genuine language of the HoLy GuosT? Is not a superstitious reverence for 
B and & betraying for ever people into error? 

II. H 


owners of Codexes must have transferred without scruple 
certain unauthorized readings to the margins of their own 
copies. A calamitous partiality for the fabricated document 
may have prevailed with some for whom copies were 
executed. Above all, it is to be inferred that licentious 
and rash Editors of Scripture—among whom Origen may 
be regarded as a prime offender,—must have deliberately 
introduced into their recensions many an unauthorized 
gloss, and so given it an extended circulation. 

Not that we would imply that permanent mischief has 
resulted to the Deposit from the vagaries of individuals in 
the earliest age. The Divine Author of Scripture hath 
abundantly provided for the safety of His Word written. 
In the multitude of copies,—in Lectionaries,—in Versions,— 
in citations by the Fathers, a sufficient safeguard against 
error hath been erected. But then, of these multitudinous 
sources of protection we must not be slow to avail ourselves 
impartially. The prejudice which would erect Codexes B 
and N into an authority for the text of the New Testament 
from which there shall be no appeal :—the superstitious 
reverence which has grown up for one little cluster of 
authorities, to the disparagement of al] other evidence 
wheresoever found ; this, which is for ever landing critics in 
results which are simply irrational and untenable, must 
be unconditionally abandoned, if any real progress is to be 
made in this department of inquiry. But when this has 
been done, men will begin to open their eyes to the fact 
that the little handful of documents recently so much in 
favour, are, on the contrary, the only surviving witnesses to 
corruptions of the Text which the Church in her corporate 
capacity has long since deliberately rejected. But to 

[From the Diatessaron of Tatian and similar attempts to 
harmonize the Gospels, corruption of a serious nature has 
ensued in some well-known places, such as the transference 


of the piercing of the LORD’s side from St. John xix. 34 to 
St. Matt. xxvii. 49 4, and the omission of the words ‘ and of 
an honeycomb’ (kal a6 rod peAtootov xnpiov ”). | 

Hence also, in Cureton’s Syriac *, the patch-work supple- 
ment to St. Matt. xxi. g: viz.:—zodAdol dé (St. Mark xi. 8) 
eEjrOov eis bravtnow abrov. Kal (St. John xii.13)#péavto . . . 
xalpovres alvety tov Ocdv . . . Tept Tacdv Gv cidov (St. Luke 
xix. 37). This self-evident fabrication, ‘if it be not a part 
of the original Aramaic of St. Matthew,’ remarks Dr. Cure- 
ton, ‘would appear to have been supplied from the parallel 
passages of Luke and John conjointly.’ How is it that 
even a sense of humour did not preserve that eminent 
scholar from hazarding the conjecture, that such a self- 
evident deflection of his corrupt Syriac Codex from the 
course all but universally pursued is a recovery of one more 
genuine utterance of the HOLY GHOST? 

1 Revision Revised, p. 33. 
2 Traditional Text, Appendix I, pp. 244-252. 
3’ The Lewis MS. is defective here. 

II 2 





THERE results inevitably from the fourfold structure of 
the Gospel,—from the very fact that the story of Redemp- 
tion is set forth in four narratives, three of which often ran 
parallel—this practical inconvenience: namely, that some- 
times the expressions of one Evangelist get improperly 
transferred to another. This is a large and important 
subject which calls for great attention, and requires to be 
separately handled. The phenomena alluded to, which are 
similar to some of those which have been treated in the 
last chapter, may be comprised under the special head of 

It will I think promote clearness in the ensuing discussion 
if we determine to consider separately those instances of 
Assimilation which may rather be regarded as deliberate 
attempts to reconcile one Gospel with another: indications 
of a fixed determination to establish harmony between place 
and place. I am saying that between ordinary cases of 
Assimilation such as occur in every page, and extraordinary 
instances where per fas et nefas an enforced Harmony has 
been established,—which abound indeed, but are by no 
means common,—I am disposed to draw a line. 

This whole province is beset with difficulties: and the 


matter is in itself wondrously obscure. I do not suppose, 
in the absence of any evidence direct or indirect on the 
subject,—at all events I am not aware—that at any time 
has there been one definite authoritative attempt made by 
the Universal Church in her corporate capacity to remodel 
or revise the Text of the Gospels. An attentive study of 
the phenomena leads me, on the contrary, to believe that 
the several corruptions of the text were effected at different 
times, and took their beginning in widely different ways. 
I suspect that Accident was the parent of many ; and well 
meant critical assiduity of more. Zeal for the Truth is 
accountable for not a few depravations: and the Church’s 
Liturgical and Lectionary practice must insensibly have 
produced others. Systematic villainy I am persuaded has 
had no part or lot in the matter. The decrees of such 
an one as Origen, if there ever was another like him, will 
account for a strange number of aberrations from the 
Truth : and if the Diatessaron of Tatian could be recovered }, 
I suspect that we should behold there the germs at least 
of as many more. But, I repeat my conviction that, how- 
ever they may have originated, the causes [are not to be 
found in bad principle, but either in infirmities or influences 
which actuated scribes unconsciously, or in a want of 
understanding as to what is the Church’s duty in the 
transmission from generation to generation of the sacred 
deposit committed to her enlightened care. | 

§ 2. 
1. When we speak of Assimilation, we do not mean that 
a writer while engaged in transcribing one Gospel was so 
completely beguiled and overmastered by his recollections 
of the parallel place in another Gospel,—that, forsaking 
the expressions proper to the passage before him, he uncon- 

1 This paper bears the date 1877: but I have thonght best to keep the words 
with this caution to the reader. 


sciously adopted the language which properly belongs to 
a different Evangelist. That to a very limited extent this 
may have occasionally taken place, 1 am not concerned to 
deny: but it would argue incredible inattention to what 
he was professing to copy, on the one hand,—astonishing 
familiarity with what he was not professing to copy, on the 
other,—that a scribe should have been capable of offending 
largely in this way. But in fact a moderate acquaintance 
with the subject is enough to convince any thoughtful 
person that the corruptions in MSS. which have resulted 
from accidental Assimilation must needs be inconsiderable 
in bulk, as well as few in number. At all events, the 
phenomenon referred to, when we speak of ‘ Assimilation,’ 
is not to be so accounted for: it must needs be explained 
in some entirely different way. Let me make my meaning 
plain : 

(a) We shall probably be agreed that when the scribe of 
Cod. &, in place of Bacavioa jyas (in St. Matt. viii. 29), 
writes 74s azoA€oat,—it may have been his memory which 
misled him. He may have been merely thinking of St. 
Mark i. 24, or of St. Luke iv. 34. 

(0) Again, when in Codd. NB we find racodyevos thrust 
without warrant into St. Matt. viii. 9, we see that the word 
has lost its way from St. Luke vii. 8; and we are prone to 
suspect that only by accident has it crept into the parallel 
narrative of the earlier Evangelist. 

(c) In the same way I make no doubt that zorayé (St. 
Matt. iii. 6) is indebted for its place in NBC, &c., to the 
influence of the parallel place in St. Mark’s Gospel (i. 5) ; 
and I am only astonished that critics should have been 
beguiled into adopting so clear a corruption of the text as 
part of the genuine Gospel. 

(d) To be brief:—the insertion by N of d5eA¢é (in St. 
Matt. vii. 4) is confessedly the result of the parallel passage 
in St. Luke vi. 42. The same scribe may be thought to 


have written 7@ dvéum instead of trois dvéyois in St. Matt. 
viii. 26, only because he was so familiar with ro dvéum in 
St. Luke viii. 24 and in St. Mark iv. 39.—The author of 
the prototype of NBD (with whom by the way are some 
of the Latin versions) may have written éxere in St. Matt. 
xvi. 8, only because he was thinking of the parallel place in 
St. Mark viii 17.—"Hpavro dyavaxreiy (St. Matt. xx. 24) 
can only have been introduced into N from the parallel place 
in St. Mark x. 41, and may have been supplied memoriter.— 
St. Luke xix. 21 is clearly not parallel to St. Matt. xxv. 24; 
yet it evidently furnished the scribe of 8 with the epithet 
avotnpds in place of oxAypés.—The substitution by & of dy 
mapyntobyro in St. Matt. xxvii. 15 for dv #0cAov may seem to be 
the result of inconvenient familiarity with the parallel place 
in St. Mark xv. 6; where, as has been shewn}, instead of 
év7ep 7jTodvro, NAB viciously exhibit dv zapnrodyro, which 
Tischendorf besides Westcott and Hort mistake for the 
genuine Gospel. Who will hesitate to admit that, when 
NL exhibit in St. Matt. xix. 16,—instead of the words 
Toinow iva €xw Cwiv aidviov,—the formula which is found in 
the parallel place of St. Luke xviii. 18, viz. tojoas (wiv 
ai#viov KAnpovoynow,—those unauthorized words must have 
been derived from this latter place? Every ordinary 
reader will be further prone to assume that the scribe who 
first inserted them into St. Matthew’s Gospel did so because, 
for whatever reason, he was more familiar with the latter 
formula than with the former. 

(e) But I should have been willing to go further. I might 
have been disposed to admit that when NDL introduce 
into St. Matt. x. 12 the clause Aéyovtes, elpyvn T@ olk@ TovT 
(which last four words confessedly belong exclusively to 
St. Luke x. 5), the author of the depraved original from 
which NDL were derived may have been only yielding to 
the suggestions of an inconveniently good memory :—may 

1 Above, p. 32. 

Sh merry a N= a asap et grt ag tt 

A ge gpm, 


have succeeded in convincing himself from what follows 
in verse 13 that St. Matthew must have written, ‘Peace 
be to this house;’ though he found no such words in 
St. Matthew’s text. And so, with the best intentions, he 
may most probably have inserted them. 

(7) Again. When N and Evan. 61 thrust into St. Matt. 
ix. 24 (from the parallel place in St. Luke viii. 53) the 
clause eiddres Ort améOavev, it is of course conceivable that 
the authors of those copies were merely the victims of 
excessive familiarity with the third Gospel. But then,— 
although we are ready to make every allowance that we 
possibly can for memories so singularly constituted, and to 
imagine a set of inattentive scribes open to inducements to 
recollect or imagine instead of copying, and possessed of an 
inconvenient familiarity with one particular Gospel,—it is 
clear that our complaisance must stop somewhere. Instances 
of this kind of licence at last breed suspicion. Systematic 
‘assimilation’ cannot be the effect of accident. Consider- 
able interpolations must of course be intentional. The 
discovery that Cod. D, for example, introduces at the end 
of St. Luke v. 14 thirty-two words from St. Mark’s Gospel 
(i. 45—ii. 1, 6 d& 連eAOdy down to Kadapvaovp), opens our 
eyes. This wholesale importation suggests the inquiry,— 
How did it come about? We look further, and we find 
that Cod. D abounds in instances of ‘ Assimilation’ so 
unmistakably intentional, that this speedily becomes the 
only question, How may all these depravations of the 
sacred text be most satisfactorily accounted for? [And 
the answer is evidently found in the existence of extreme 
licentiousness in the scribe or scribes responsible for Codex 
D, being the product of ignorance and carelessness com- 
bined with such looseness of principle, as permitted the 
exercise of direct attempts to improve the sacred Text by 
the introduction of passages from the three remaining 
Gospels and by other alterations. ] 


§ 3. 

Sometimes indeed the true Text bears witness to itself, 
as may be seen in the next example. 

The little handful of well-known authorities (NBDL, 
with a few copies of the Old Latin, and one of the Egyptian 
Versions!), conspire in omitting from St. John xvi. 16 the 
clause 61. éyo tmdyw mpds tov Ilarépa: for which reason 
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort omit 
those six words, and Lachmann puts them into brackets. 
And yet, let the context be considered. Our SAVIOUR had 
said (ver. 16),—‘ A little while, and ye shall not see Me: 
and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me, because I go 
to the FATHER.’ It follows (ver. 17),—‘ Then said some of 
His disciples among themselves, What is this that He saith 
unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, 
a little while, and ye shall see Me: and, Because I go to the 
FATHER? ’—Now, the context here,—the general sequence 
of words and ideas—in and by itself, creates a high degree 
of probability that the clause is genuine. It must at all 
events be permitted to retain its place in the Gospel, unless 
there is found to exist an overwhelming amount of authority 
for its exclusion. What then are the facts? All the other 
uncials, headed by A and I (d0¢h of the fourth century),— 
every known Cursive—all the Versions, (Latin, Syriac, 
Gothic, Coptic, &c.)—are for retaining the clause. Add, 
that Nonnus? (A.D. 400) recognizes it: that the texts of 
Chrysostom* and of Cyril* do the same; and that both 
those Fathers (to say nothing of Euthymius and Theophy- 
lact) in their Commentaries expressly bear witness to its 
genuineness :—and, With what shew of reason can it any 

+ The alleged evidence of Origen (iv. 453) is #¢/; the sum of it being that 
he takes no notice whatever of the forty words between dyeo0é pe (in ver. 16), 
and rovro zi éory (in ver. 18). 

? Nonnus,—ifopar eis yevynrijpa. 8 viii. 465 a and c. 

* iv. 932 and 933 c. 

Se eeten eee ~~ 

NT ey Cee Re ee eee ee eae 


longer be pretended that some Critics, including the 
Revisers, are warranted in leaving out the words? .. . It 
were to trifle with the reader to pursue this subject further. 
But how did the words ever come to be omitted? Some 
early critic, I answer, who was unable to see the exquisite 
proprieties of the entire passage, thought it desirable to 
bring ver. 16 into conformity with ver. 19, where our LORD 
seems at first sight to resyllable the matter. That is all! 

Let it be observed—and then I will dismiss the matter— 
that the selfsame thing has happened in the next verse 
but one (ver. 18), as Tischendorf candidly acknowledges. 
The rotro ri éorw of the Evangelist has been tastelessly 
assimilated by BDLY to the ri éorw rodro which went 
immediately before. 

§ 4. 

Were I invited to point to a beautifully . described 
incident in the Gospel, I should find it difficult to lay my 
finger on anything more apt for my purpose than the 
transaction described in St. John xiii. 21-25. It belongs 
to the closing scene of our SAVIOUR’S Ministry. ‘ Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, (the words were spoken at the Last 
Supper), ‘one of you will betray Me. The disciples there- 
fore looked one at another, wondering of whom He spake. 
Now there was reclining in the bosom of JESUS (jv 8 
dvakeluevos éy T@ KOAT@ TOD I.) one of His disciples whom 
JESUS loved. To him therefore Simon Peter motioneth to 
inquire who it may be concerning whom He speaketh. 
He then, just sinking on the breast of Jesus (émumeoady 8 
exeivos ottws énl rd orH0os Tod ’I.) [i. e. otherwise keeping his 
position, see above, p. 60], saith unto Him, LoRp, who 
is it?* 

The Greek is exquisite. At first, St. John has been 
simply ‘reclining (dvaxe{yevos) in the bosom’ of his Divine 
Master: that is, his place at the Supper is the next adjoin- 


ing His,—for the phrase really means little more. But the 
proximity is of course excessive, as the sequel shews. 
Understanding from St. Peter’s gesture what is required of 
him, St. John merely sinks back, and having thus let his 
head fall (@suzecdv) on (or close to) His Master’s chest (émi 
70 otf00s), he says softly—‘ LORD, who is it?’ ... The 
moment is perhaps the most memorable in the Evangelist’s 
life: the position, one of unutterable privilege. Time, 
place, posture, action,—all settle so deep into his soul, that 
when, in his old age, he would identify himself, he describes 
himself as ‘the disciple whom JESUS loved; who also at 
the Supper’ (¢#at memorable Supper !) ‘lay (dvérecev 1) on 
JEsus’ breast,’ (literally, ‘upon His chest,—ézi 7d orfOos 
avrov), and said, ‘ LORD, who is it that is to betray Thee?’ 
(ch. xxi. 20)... . Yes, and the Church was not slow to 
take the beautiful hint. His language so kindled her 
imagination that the early Fathers learned to speak of 
St. John the Divine, as 6 émor7j6v0s,—‘ the (recliner) on 
the chest 2.’ 

Now, every delicate discriminating touch in this sublime © 
picture is faithfully retained throughout by the cursive 
copies in the proportion of about eighty to one. The 
great bulk of the MSS., as usual, uncial and cursive alike, 
establish the undoubted text of the Evangelist, which is here 
the Received Text. Thus, a vast majority of the MSS., 
with NAD at their head, read émmeody in St. John xiii. 25. 
Chrysostom ° and probably Cyril * confirm the same reading. 

= dva-xelpevos + ém-necdy. [Used not to suggest over-familiarity (?).] 

* Beginning with Anatolius Laodicenus, A.D. 270 (af. Galland. iii. 548). Cf. 
Routh, Rell. i. 42. 

3 Ov« dvdkara pdvov, GAdAA Kal TE oTnOer émminre (Opp. viii. 423 a).— 
Ti 5 wat émninres 7G or7nGe (ibid. d). Note that the passage ascribed to 
‘Apolinarius’ in Cord. Cat. p. 342 (which includes the second of these two 
references) is in reality part of Chrysostom’s Commentary on St. John (ubi 
supra, c d). 

* Cord. Cat. p. 341. But it is only in the «eipevor (or text) that the verb is 
found,—Opp. iv. 735. 


So also Nonnus?. Not so B and C with four other uncials 
and about twenty cursives (the vicious Evan. 33 being at 
their head), besides Origen? in two places and apparently 
Theodorus of Mopsuestia?. These by mischievously 
assimilating the place in ch. xiii to the later place in ch. xxi 
in which such affecting reference is made to it, hopelessly 
obscure the Evangelist’s meaning. For they substitute 
dvatecov ovy éxetvos k.t.A. It is exactly as when children, 
by way of improving the sketch of a great Master, 
go over his matchless outlines with a clumsy pencil of 
their own. 

That this is the true history of the substitution of 
avarecoy in St. John xiii. 25 for the less obvious émecor is 
certain. Origen, who was probably the author of all the 
mischief, twice sets the two places side by side and 
elaborately compares them; in the course of which opera- 
tion, by the way, he betrays the viciousness of the text 
which he himself employed. But what further helps to 
explain how easily davameodv might usurp the place of 
émimeo@v *, is the discovery just noticed, that the ancients 
from the earliest period were in the habit of identifying 
St. John, as St. John had identified himself, by calling him 
‘the one that lay (6 avanecsdy) upon the LORD'S chest. The 
expression, derived from St. John xxi. 20, is employed by 
Irenaeus® (A.D. 178) and by Polycrates* (Bp. of Ephesus 
A.D. 196); by Origen’? and by Ephraim Syrus*: by 

1 6 5é Opaads b£€i marp@ | orfjOcow axpavroor read mEeqidnpévos avip. 

? iv. 437 c: 440d. 

8 Ibid. p. 342. 

* Even Chrysostom, who certainly read the place as we do, is observed twice 
to glide into the more ordinary expression, viz. viii. 423, line 13 from the bottom, 
and p. 424, line 18 from the top. 

5 6 ént 7d orH00s abrod dvamecdy (iii. 1, § 1). 

° 6 én 70 or 700s Tod Kupiov dvaneadv (ap. Euseb. iii. 31). 

* Ti def wept rod dvameadvros émt 7d arHOos A€ye TOD “Ingod (ibid. vi. 25. 
Opp. iv. 95). 

* 6 én TH a7HOE Tod proyds dvawecdy (Opp. ii. 49 a. Cf. 133 c). 


Epiphanius’ and by Palladius?: by Gregory of Nazianzus * 
and by his namesake of Nyssa*: by pseudo-Eusebius’, 
by pseudo-Caesarius ®, and by pseudo-Chrysostom’. The 
only wonder is, that in spite of such influences all the 
MSS. in the world except about twenty-six have retained 
the true reading. 

Instructive in the meantime it is to note the fate which 
this word has experienced at the hands of some Critics. 
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and 
Hort, have all in turn bowed to the authority of Cod. B 
and Origen. Bishop Lightfoot mistranslates* and contends 
on the same side. Alford informs us that émimeodv has 
surreptitiously crept in ‘from St. Luke xv. 20’: (why 
should it? how could it?) ‘dvameody not seeming ap- 
propriate. Whereas, on the contrary, dvameody is the 
invariable and obvious expression,—émimeody the unusual, 
and, till it has been explained, the unintelligible word. 
Tischendorf,—who had read émimeocov in 1848 and dvateodv 
in 1859,—in 1869 reverts to his first opinion; advocating 
with parental partiality what he had since met with in 
Cod. 8. Is then the truth of Scripture aptly represented 

1 (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 1062: ii. 8. 
2 rod eis TO THs Gopias oTOos moTas éravamecévtos (ap. Chrys, xiii. 55). 
6 émt 76 otH90s TOD “Incod dvanavera (Opp. i. 591). 

* (As quoted by Polycrates): Opp. i. 488. 

5 Wright’s Apocryphal Acts (fourth century), translated from the Syriac, p. 3. 

® (Fourth or fifth century) af. Galland. vi. 132. 

7 Ap. Chrys. viii. 296. 

® On a fresh Revision, &c., p. 73.—‘ Avaninrew, (which occurs eleven times in 
the N. T.), when said of guests (dvaxeiyevor) at a repast, denotes nothing what- 
ever but the preliminary act of each in taking his place at the table; being the 
Greek equivalent for our “ sitting down” to dinner. So far only does it signify 
‘ change of posture.” The notion of “falling dackward” quite disappears in the 
notion of “ reclining” or “lying down.” ’—In St. John xxi. 20, the language of 
the Evangelist is the very mirror of his thought; which evidently passed directly 
from the moment when he assumed his place at the table (dvémecev), to that 
later moment when (éa! 7d o7700s avrod) he interrogated his Divine Master 
concerning Judas. It is a general description of an incident,—for the details of 
which we have to refer to the circumstantial and authoritative narrative which 
went before. 



to Tischendorf) by nearly twenty-five cursives; besides 
the following ancient writers: Irenaeus, Origen, Porphyry, 
Titus, Basil, Serapion, Epiphanius, Severianus, Victor, 
Eusebius, Victorinus, Jerome, Augustine. I proceed to 
shew that this imposing array of authorities for reading 
év 76 "Hoala to sporty instead of év tots mpopyras in 
St. Mark i. 2, which has certainly imposed upon every 
recent editor and critic!,—has been either overestimated 
or else misunderstood. 

1. The testimony of the oldest versions, when attention 
is paid to their contents, is discovered to be of inferior 
moment in minuter matters of this nature. Thus, copies 
of the Old Latin version thrust Isaiah’s name into St. Matt. 
i. 22, and Zechariah’s name into xxi. 4: as well as thrust 
out Jeremiah’s name from xxvii. 9 :—the first, with Cure- 
tonian, Lewis, Harkleian, Palestinian, and D,—the second, 
with Chrysostom and Hilary,—the third, with the Peshitto. 
The Latin and the Syriac further substitute rod zpogjrov 
for rév zpopytaév in St. Matt. ii. 23,—through misappre- 
hension of the Evangelist’s meaning. What is to be 
thought of Cod. & for introducing the name of ‘Isaiah’ 
into St. Matt. xiii. 35,—-where it clearly cannot stand, the 
quotation being confessedly from Ps. lxxviii. 2; but where 
nevertheless Porphyry”, Eusebius*, and pseudo-Jerome + 
certainly found it in many ancient copies ? 

2. Next, for the testimony of the Uncial Codexes 
NBDLA :—If any one will be at the pains to tabulate 
the goo ° new ‘readings’ adopted by Tischendorf in editing 
St. Mark’s Gospel, he will discover that for 450, or just 
half of them,—all the 450, as I believe, being corruptions 
of the text,—NBL are responsible: and further, that their 

* Thus Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Words- 
worth, Green, Scrivener, M°Clellan, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers. 

? In pseudo-Jerome’s Brey. in Psalm., Opp. vii. (ad calc.) 198. 

5 Mont. i. 462. * Ubi supra, 
5 Omitting trifling variants, 


responsibility is shared on about 200 occasions by D: on 
about 265 by C: on about 350 by Al. At some very 
remote period therefore there must have grown up a 
vicious general reading of this Gospel which remains in 
the few bad copies: but of which the largest traces (and 
very discreditable traces they are) at present survive in 
NBCDLA. After this discovery the avowal will not be 
thought extraordinary that I regard with unmingled sus- 
picion readings which are exclusively vouched for by five 
of the same Codexes: e.g. by NBDLA. 

3. The cursive copies which exhibit ‘Isaiah’ in place 
of ‘the prophet,’ reckoned by Tischendorf at ‘nearly 
twenty-five, are probably less than fifteen”, and those, 
almost all of suspicious character. High time it is that 
the inevitable consequence of an appeal to such evidence 
were better understood. 

4. From Tischendorf’s list of thirteen Fathers, serious 
deductions have to be made. Irenaeus and Victor of 
Antioch are clearly with the Textus Receptus. Serapion, 
Titus, Basil do but borrow from Origen; and, with his 
argument, reproduce his corrupt text of St. Mark i. 2. 
The last-named Father however saves his reputation by 
leaving out the quotation from Malachi; so, passing 
directly from the mention of Isaiah to the actual words 
of that prophet. Epiphanius (and Jerome too on one 
occasion *) does the same thing. Victorinus and Augus- 
tine, being Latin writers, merely quote the Latin version 
(‘sicut scriptum est in Isaia propheta’), which is without 
variety of reading. There remain Origen (the faulty 
character of whose Codexes has been remarked upon 

2 NBL are exclusively responsible on 45 occasions: +C (i.e. NBCL), on 27: 
+D, on 35: +A,on73: +CD,on1g: +CA, on 118: +DA (i.e. NBDLA), 
on 42: +CDA, on 66, 

2 In the text of Evan. 72 the reading in dispute is ~o¢ found: 205, 206 are 
duplicates of 209: and 222, 255 are only fragments. There remain 1, 22, 33, 
61, 63, 115, 131, 151, 152, 161, 184, 209, 253, 372, 391 :—of which the six at 
Rome require to be re-examined. 3 y. 10, 

Be I 


already), Porphyry! the heretic (who wrote a book to 
convict the Evangelists of mis-statements*, and who is 
therefore scarcely a trustworthy witness), Eusebius, Jerome 
and Severianus. Of these, Eusebius *® and Jerome * deliver 
it as their opinion that the name of ‘ Isaiah’ had obtained 
admission into the text through the inadvertency of 
copyists. Is it reasonable, on the slender residuum of 
evidence, to insist that St. Mark has ascribed to Isaiah 
words confessedly written by Malachi? ‘The fact, writes 
a recent editor in the true spirit of modern criticism, 
‘will not fail to be observed by the careful and honest 
student of the Gospels.’ But what if ‘the fact’ should 
prove to be ‘a fiction’ only? And (I venture to ask) 
would not ‘ carefulness’ be better employed in scrutinizing 
the adverse testimony? ‘honesty’ in admitting that on 
grounds precarious as the present no indictment against 
an Evangelist can be seriously maintained? This proposal 
to revive a blunder which the Church in her corporate 
capacity has from the first refused to sanction (for the 
Evangelistaria know nothing of it) carries in fact on its front 
its own sufficient condemnation. Why, in the face of all 
the copies in the world (except a little handful of suspicious 
character), will men insist on imputing to an inspired 
writer a foolish mis-statement, instead of frankly admitting 
that the text must needs have been corrupted in that little 
handful of copies through the officiousness of incompetent 
criticism ? 

And do any inquire——How then did this perversion 
of the truth arise? In the easiest way possible, I answer. 

* Ap. Hieron. vii. 17. 

* «Evangelistas arguere falsitatis, hoc impiorum est, Celsi, Porphyrii, Juliani.’ 
Hieron. i. 311. 

% ypapéws roivuy éorl ofddpa. Quoted (from the lost work of Eusebius ad 
Marinum) in Victor of Ant.’s Catena, ed. Cramer, p. 267. (See Simon, iii, 89; 
Mai, iv. 299; Matthaei’s N. T. ii. 20, &c.) 

* “Nos autem nomen Isaiae putamus additum Scriptorum vitio, quod et in 
aliis locis probare possumus.’ vii. 17 (I suspect he got it from Eusebius). 


Refer to the Eusebian tables, and note that the foremost 
of his sectional parallels is as follows :— 

St. Matt. St. Mark. St. Luke. St. John. 

7 (i.e. ili. 3). B' (ie. i. 3). ¢ (i.e. iti. 3-6). U’ (Le. i. 23)%. 

Now, since the name of Isaiah occurs in the first, the 
third and the fourth of these places in connexion with 
the quotation from Is. xl. 3, what more obvious than that 
some critic with harmonistic proclivities should have 
insisted on supplying the second also, i.e. the parallel 
place in St. Mark’s Gospel, with the name of the evan- 
gelical prophet, elsewhere so familiarly connected with the 
passage quoted? This is nothing else in short but an 
ordinary instance of Assimilation, so unskilfully effected 
however as to betray itself. It might have been passed 
by with fewer words, for the fraud is indeed transparent, 
but that it has so largely imposed upon learned men, 
and established itself so firmly in books. Let me hope 
that we shall not hear it advocated any more. 

Regarded as an instrument of criticism, Assimilation 
requires to be very delicately as well as very skilfully 
handled. If it is to be applied to determining the text 
of Scripture, it must be employed, I take leave to say, 
in a very different spirit from what is met with in 
Dr. Tischendorfs notes, or it will only mislead. Is 
a word—a clause—a sentence—omitted by his favourite 
authorities NBDL? It is enough if that learned critic 
finds nearly the same word,—a very similar clause, 
a sentence of the same general import,—in an account 
of the same occurrence by another Evangelist, for him 
straightway to insist that the sentence, the clause, the 
word, has been imported into the commonly received 
Text from such parallel place; and to reject it accordingly. 

1 See Studia Biblica, ii. p. 249. Syrian Form of Ammonian sections and 

Eusebian Canons by Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. Mr. Gwilliam gives St. Luke 
iii. 4-6, according to the Syrian form. 



But, as the thoughtful reader must see, this is not allow- 
able, except under peculiar circumstances. For first, 
whatever a friort improbability might be supposed to 
attach to the existence of identical expressions in two 
Evangelical records of the same transaction, is effectually 
disposed of by the discovery that very often identity of 
expression actually does occur. And (2), the only con- 
dition which could warrant the belief that there has been 
assimilation, is observed to be invariably away from 
Dr. Tischendorf’s instances,—viz. a sufficient number of 
respectable attesting witnesses: it being a fundamental 
principle in the law of Evidence, that the very few are 
rather to be suspected than the many. But further (3), if 
there be some marked diversity of expression discover- 
able in the two parallel places; and if that diversity has 
been carefully maintained all down the ages in either 
place ;—then it may be regarded as certain, on the 
contrary, that there has not been assimilation; but that 
this is only one more instance of two Evangelists saying 
similar things or the same thing in slightly different 
language. Take for example the following case :— 
Whereas St. Matt. (xxiv. 15) speaks of ‘the abomination 
of desolation 76 fndev Al1A AaviyA Tod wpodyrov, standing 
(éorés) in the holy place’; St. Mark (xiii. 14) speaks of it 
as ‘ro pndév YIIO AavijA tod spopyrov standing (écrds) 
where it ought not.’ Now, because NBDL with copies 
of the Italic, the Vulgate, and the Egyptian versions omit 
from St. Mark’s Gospel the six words written above in 
Greek, Tischendorf and his school are for expunging those 
six words from St. Mark’s text, on the plea that they are 
probably an importation from St. Matthew. But the little 
note of variety which the HOLY SPIRIT has set on the 
place in the second Gospel (indicated above in capital 
letters) suggests that these learned men are mistaken. 
Accordingly, the other fourteen uncials and all the 


cursives,—besides the Peshitto, Harkleian, and copies of the 
Old Latin—a much more weighty body of evidence—are 
certainly right in retaining the words in St. Mark xiii. 14. 

Take two more instances of misuse in criticism of 

St. Matthew (xii. 10), and St. Luke in the parallel place 
of his Gospel (xiv. 3), describe our LORD as asking,—‘ Is 
it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?’ Tischendorf 
finding that his favourite authorities in this latter place 
continue the sentence with the words ‘or of?’ assumes 
that those two words must have fallen out of the great 
bulk of the copies of St. Luke, which, according to him, 
have here assimilated their phraseology to that of St. 
Matthew. But the hypothesis is clearly inadmissible,— 
though it is admitted by most modern critics. Do not 
these learned persons see that the supposition is just as 
lawful, and the probability infinitely greater, that it is 
on the contrary the few copies which have here under- 
gone the process of assimilation; and that the type to 
which they have been conformed, is to be found in 
St. Matt. xxii. 17; St. Mark xii. 14; St. Luke xx. 22? 

It is in fact surprising how often a familiar place of 
Scripture has exerted this kind of assimilating influence 
over a little handful of copies. Thus, some critics are 
happily agreed in rejecting the proposal of NBDLR, 
(backed scantily by their usual retinue of evidence) to 
substitute for yeuloa: ryy KovAlay adrod and, in St. Luke xv. 16, 
the words xopracOjjva éx. But editors have omitted to 
point out that the words éwe@Juer xopracOjva, introduced 
in defiance of the best authorities into the parable of 
Lazarus (xvi. 20), have simply been transplanted thither 
out of the parable of the prodigal son. 

The reader has now been presented with several examples 
of Assimilation. Tischendorf, who habitually overlooks 
the phenomenon where it seems to be sufficiently con- 


spicuous, is observed constantly to discover cases of 
Assimilation where none exist. This is in fact his habitual 
way of accounting for not a few of the omissions in Cod. &. 
And because he has deservedly enjoyed a great reputation, 
it becomes the more necessary to set the reader on his 
guard against receiving such statements without a thorough 
examination of the evidence on which they rest. 

§ 6. 

The value—may I not say, the use ?—of these delicate 
differences of detail becomes apparent whenever the genuine- 
ness of the text is called in question. Take an example. 
The following fifteen words are deliberately excluded from 
St. Mark’s Gospel (vi. 11) by some critics on the authority 
of NBCDLA,—a most suspicious company, and three 
cursives ; besides a few copies of the Old Latin, including 
the Vulgate :—dyiy A€yw tyiv, dvexrérepov éotar Doddpors 7 
Toudppots ev tuepa kpioews, 7 TH TéAE exelvy. It is pretended 
that this is nothing else but an importation from the 
parallel place of St. Matthew’s Gospel (x. 15). But that 
is impossible: for, as the reader sees at a glance, a delicate 
but decisive note of discrimination has been set on the two 
places. St. Mark writes, ZoddwOIS *H ToudppOle: St. 
Matthew, TH So0d5uQN KAI TopudppQN. And this threefold, 
or rather fourfold, diversity of expression has existed from 
the beginning ; for it has been faithfully retained all down 
the ages: it exists to this hour in every known copy of 
the Gospel,—except of course those nine which omit the 
sentence altogether. There can be therefore no doubt about 
its genuineness. The critics of the modern school (Lach- 
mann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort) 
seek in vain to put upon us a mutilated text by omitting 
those fifteen words. The two places are clearly inde- 
pendent of each other. 


It does but remain to point out that the exclusion of 
these fifteen words from the text of St. Mark, has merely 
resulted from the influence of the parallel place in St. 
Luke’s Gospel (ix. 5),—where nothing whatever is found! 
corresponding with St. Matt. x. 5—St. Mark vi.11. The 
process of Assimilation therefore has been actively at 
work here, although not in the way which some critics 
suppose. It has resulted, not in the insertion of the words 
in dispute in the case of the very many copies; but on the 
contrary in their omission from the very few. And thus, 
one more brand is set on NBCDLA and their Latin allies,— 
which will be found zever to conspire together exclusively 
except to mislead. 

§ 7. 

Because:a certain clause (e.g. cal ) Aadtd cov duordder in 
St. Mark xiv. 70) is absent from Codd. SBCDL, Lachmann, 
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort entirely 
eject these five precious words from St. Mark’s Gospel, 
Griesbach having already voted them ‘ probably spurious.’ 
When it has been added that many copies of the Old Latin 
also, together with the Vulgate and the Egyptian versions, 
besides Eusebius, ignore their existence, the present writer 
scarcely expects to be listened to if he insists that the 
words are perfectly genuine notwithstanding. The thing is 
certain however, and the Revisers are to blame for having 
surrendered five precious words of genuine Scripture, as 
I am going to shew. 

1. Now, even if the whole of the case were already before 
the reader, although to some there might seem to exist 
a prima facie probability that the clause is spurious, yet 
even so,—it would not be difficult to convince a thoughtful 
man that the reverse must be nearer the truth. For let the 

1 Compare St. Mark vi. 7-13 with St. Luke ix. 1-6. 


parallel places in the first two Gospels be set down side 
by side :— 

St. Matt. xxvi. 73. St. Mark xiv. 70. 
(1) ’AAnOGs Kai od (1) *AAnOGs 
(2) e& atrap ef (2) &€ adray ef 
(3) xal yap (3) xat yap Taduraios ?, 
(4) 7 AaAd cov d7Adv ce (4) kal % AaAtd cov dpol- 
Tovel. ace. 

What more clear than that the later Evangelist is 
explaining what his predecessor meant by ‘thy speech 
bewrayeth thee’ [or else is giving an independent account of 
the same transaction derived from the common source]? 
To St. Matthew,—a Jew addressing Jews,—it seemed super- 
fluous to state that it was the peculiar accent of Galilee 
which betrayed Simon Peter. To St. Mark,—or rather 
to the readers whom St. Mark specially addressed,—the 
point was by no means so obvious. Accordingly, he 
paraphrases,—‘ for thou art a Galilean and thy speech 
correspondeth.’ Let me be shewn that all down the ages, 
in ninety-nine copies out of every hundred, this peculiar 
diversity of expression has been faithfully retained, and 
instead of assenting to the proposal to suppress St. Mark’s 
(fourth) explanatory clause with its unique verb dpo.d¢e, 
I straightway betake myself to the far more pertinent 
inquiry,— What is the state of the text hereabouts? What, 
in fact, the context? This at least is not a matter of 
opinion, but a matter of fact. 

1. And first, I discover that Cod. D, in concert with 
several copies of the Old Latin (abc ff*hq, &c.), only 
removes clause (4) from its proper place in St. Mark’s 
Gospel, in order to thrust it into the parallel place in 
St. Matthew,—where it supplants the # AaAtd cou d7jAdy ce 

move? of the earlier Evangelist ; and where it clearly has no 
business to be. 


Indeed the object of D is found to have been to assimi- 
late St. Matthew’s Gospel to St. Mark,—for D also omits 
kal od in clause (1). 

2. The Ethiopic version, on the contrary, is for assimi- 
lating St. Mark to St. Matthew, for it transfers the same 
clause (4) as it stands in St. Matthew’s Gospel (kal 4 Aadud 
cov dfAdv oe Trovet) to St. Mark. 

3. Evan. 33 (which, because it exhibits an ancient text of 
a type like B, has been styled [with grim irony]‘ the Queen 
of the Cursives’) is more brilliant here than usual; exhibit- 
ing St. Mark’s clause (4) thus,—kal yap 7) Aadid cov dfAdv ce 

4. In C (and the Harkleian) the process of Assimilation 
is as conspicuous as in D, for St. Mark’s third clause (3) is 
imported bodily into St. Matthew’s Gospel. C further 
omits from St. Mark clause (4). 

5. In the Vercelli Codex (a) however, the converse 
process is conspicuous. St. Mark’s Gospel has been assimi- 
lated to St. Matthew’s by the unauthorized insertion into 
clause (1) of cat od (which by the way is also found in M), 
and (in concert with the Gothic and Evann. 73, 131, 142*) 
by the entire suppression of clause (3). 

6. Cod. L goes beyond all. [True to the craze of 
omission], it further obliterates as well from St. Matthew’s 
Gospel as from St. Mark’s all trace of clause (4). 

7. N and B alone of Codexes, though in agreement with 
the Vulgate and the Egyptian version, do but eliminate 
the final clause (4) of St. Mark’s Gospel. But note, lastly, 

8. Cod. A, together with the Syriac versions, the Gothic, 
and the whole body of the cursives, recognizes none of these 
irregularities: but exhibits the commonly received text 
with entire fidelity. 

On a survey of the premisses, will any candid person 


seriously contend that kal 7 Aadid cov dyord¢e: is no part of 
the genuine text of St. Mark xiv. 70? The wordsare found 
in what are virtually the most ancient authorities extant : 
the Syriac versions (besides the Gothic and Cod. A), the 
Old Latin (besides Cod. D)—retain them ;—those in their 
usual place,—these, in their unusual. Idle it clearly is in 
the face of such evidence to pretend that St. Mark cannot 
have written the words in question’. It is too late to insist 
that a man cannot have lost his watch when his watch is 
proved to have been in his own pocket at eight in the 
morning, and is found in another man’s pocket at nine. 
As for C and L, their handling of the Text hereabouts 
clearly disqualifies them from being cited in evidence. 
They are condemned under the note of Context. Adverse 
testimony is borne by B and N: and by them only. They 
omit the words in dispute,—the ordinary habit of theirs, 
and most easily accounted for. But how is the punctual 
insertion of the words in every other known copy to be 
explained? In the meantime, it remains to be stated,— 
and with this I shall take leave of the discussion,—that 
hereabouts ‘we have a set of passages which bear clear 
marks of wilful and critical correction, thoroughly carried 
out in Cod. N, and only partially in Cod. B and some of its 
compeers; the object being so far to assimilate the narrative 
of Peter’s denials with those of the other Evangelists, as to 
suppress the fact, vouched for by St. Mark only, that the 
cock crowed twice*.’ TZhat incident shall be treated of 
separately. Can those principles stand, which in the face 
of the foregoing statement, and the evidence which preceded 
it, justify the disturbance of the text in St. Mark xiv. 70? 

[We now pass on to a kindred cause of adulteration of 
the text of the New Testament. ] 

? Schulz,—‘ et Aadra et ool aliena a Marco.’ Tischendorf—‘ omnino 
e Matthaeo fluxit: ipsum opoa{e glossatoris est.’ This is foolishness,—not 

* Scrivener’s Full Collation of the Cod. Sin., &c., 2nd ed., p. xlvii. 




§ 1. 

THERE exist not a few corrupt Readings,—and they have 
imposed largely on many critics,—which, strange to relate, 
have arisen from nothing else but the proneness of words 
standing side by side in a sentence to be attracted into 
a likeness of ending,—whether in respect of grammatical 
form or of sound ; whereby sometimes the sense is made to 
suffer grievously,—sometimes entirely to disappear. Let 
this be called the error of ATTRACTION. The phenomena 
of ‘ Assimilation’ are entirely distinct. A somewhat gross 
instance, which however has imposed on learned critics, is 
furnished by the Revised Text and Version of St. John 
vi. 71 and xiii. 26. 

‘Judas Iscarict’ is a combination of appellatives with 
which every Christian ear is even awfully familiar. The 
expression “Iovdas "Ioxapidrns is found in St. Matt. x. 4 
and xxvi. 14: in St. Mark iii. 19 and xiv. 10: in St. Luke 
vi. 16, and in xxii. 31 with the express statement added 
that Judas was so ‘surnamed.’ So far happily we are all 
agreed. St. John’s invariable practice -is to designate the 
traitor, whom he names four times, as ‘Judas Iscariot, 
the son of Simon ;’—jealous doubtless for the honour of his 


brother Apostle, ‘Jude (Iovjas) the brother of James’’: 
and resolved that there shall be no mistake about the 
traitor’s identity. Who does not at once recall the Evan- 
gelist’s striking parenthesis in St. John xiv. 22,—‘ Judas (not 
Iscariot)’? Accordingly, in St. John xiii. 2 the Revisers 
present us with ‘Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son’: and even 
in St. John xii. 4 they are content to read ‘ Judas Iscariot.’ 

But in the two places of St. John’s Gospel which remain 
to be noticed, viz. vi. 71 and xiii. 26, instead of ‘ Judas 
Iscariot the son of Simon,’ the Revisers require us hence- 
forth to read, ‘Judas the son of Simon Iscariot.’ And 
why? Only, lanswer, because—in place of “Iovdav Sipvwvos 
"Ioxapt6THN (in vi. 71) and ‘Iovdq Sipwvos "IoxapoTH (in 
xiii. 26)—a little handful of copies substitute on both 
occasions "Ioxapps TOY. Need I goon? Nothing else has 
evidently happened but that, through the oscitancy of 
some very early scribe, the "Icxapié6THN, “IoxapuéTH, have 
been attracted into concord with the immediately preceding 
genitive ZIuwNOC .. . So transparent a blunder would have 
scarcely deserved a passing remark at our hands had it 
been suffered to remain,—where such Jdétises are the rule 
and not the exception,—viz. in the columns of Codexes B 
and &. But strange to say, not only have the Revisers 
adopted this corrupt reading in the two passages already 
mentioned, but they have not let so much as a hint fall 
that any alteration whatsoever has been made by them in 
the inspired Text. 

§ 2. 

Another and a far graver case of ‘ Attraction’ is found 
in Acts xx. 24. St. Paul, in his address to the elders of 
Ephesus, refers to the discouragements he has had to en- 
counter. ‘But none of these things move me, he grandly 
exclaims, ‘neither count I my life dear unto myself, so 

? St. Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13; St. Jude 1. 


that I might finish my course with joy. The Greek for 
this begins aX’ ovdevds Adyov wo1odpar: where some second 
or third century copyist (misled by the preceding genitive) 
in place of AdyoN writes AdyoY ; with what calamitous con- 
sequence, has been found largely explained elsewhere’. 
Happily, the error survives only in Codd. B and C: and 
their character is already known by the readers of this 
book and the Companion Volume. So much has been 
elsewhere offered on this subject that I shall say no more 
about it here: but proceed to present my reader with 
another and more famous instance of attraction. 

St. Paul in a certain place (2 Cor. iii. 3) tells the Corin- 
thians, in allusion to the language of Exodus xxxi. 12, 
Xxxiv. 1, that they are an epistle not written on ‘stony 
tables (év mdraki ALGivais), but on ‘fleshy tables of the heart 
(év tAa€t xapdias capkivais).’ The one proper proof that this 
is what St. Paul actually wrote, is not only (1) That the 
Copies largely preponderate in favour of so exhibiting 
the place: but (2) That the Versions, with the single excep- 
tion of ‘that abject slave of manuscripts the Philoxenian 
[or Harkleian] Syriac, are all on the same side: and lastly 
(3) That the Fathers are as nearly as possible unanimous. 
Let the evidence for xapdfas (unknown to Tischendorf and 
the rest) be produced in detail :— 

In the second century, Irenaeus *,—the Old Latin,—the 

In the third century, Origen seven times *,—the Coptic 

In the fourth century, the Dialogus *,—Didymus *,— 
Basil °,-Gregory Nyss. ’,—Marcus the Monk *,—Chry- 

? Above, pp. 28-31. 2 753 int. 

5 ii. 843 e. Also int. ii. 96, 303; iv. 419, 489, 529, 558. 

* Ap. Orig. i. 866 a,—interesting and emphatic testimony. 

5 Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 272. 6 ij, 161 e. Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 844. 
7 i, 682 (ob« év mAagt AcBivas .. . GAN’ ey TH ris wapdias trufiy). 

§ Galland. viii. 40 b. 


sostom in two places '—Nilus*,—the Vulgate,—and the 
Gothic versions. 

In the fifth century, Cyril *,—Isidorus *+;—Theodoret °, 
—the Armenian—and the Ethiopic versions. 

In the seventh century, Victor, Bp. of Carthage ad- 
dressing Theodorus P.® 

In the eighth century, J. Damascene’. . . Besides, of the 
Latins, Hilary*, —Ambrose ®, — Optatus 1°, — Jerome 14,— 
Tichonius *,—Augustine thirteen times 1*,—Fulgentius*, 
and others ?°. .. If this be not overwhelming evidence, may 
I be told what zs 18? 

But then it so happens that—attracted by the two 
datives between which xapdias stands, and tempted by the 
consequent jingle, a surprising number of copies are found 
to exhibit the ‘perfectly absurd’ and ‘wholly unnatural 
reading" wAagi xapdAIC capxwwAIC. And because (as 
might have been expected from their character) Al® BNCD 

Civil g2nc) Xi-4'7.5: 21:20: 

$i, 8: ii. 504: v% 65. (Aubert prints xapdias capxivns. The published 

Concilia (iii. 140) exhibits xapSias capxivas. Pusey, finding in one of his MSS. 
GAN év mAagl Kapdias ALBivas (séc), prints Kapdiars capkivats.) Ap. Mai, iii. 

89, 90. 
20: 5 iii. 302. § Concil. vi. 154. 
Co Vesal te Xoy 2.344. 9 i. 762: ii. 668, 1380. 
10 Galland. v. 505. 1 vi. 609. 1 Galland. viii. 742 dis. 

131, 672: ii. 49: iii'. 472, 560: iv. 1302: v. 743-4: Vili. 311: x. 98, IOT, 
104, 107, IIo. 

1 Galland. xi. 248. 8 Ps.-Ambrose, ii. 176. 

16 Yet strange to say, Tischendorf claims the support of Didymus and 
Theodoret for xapdias, on the ground that in the course of their expository 
remarks they contrast xapSia: cdpxwar (or Aoyicat) with wAdxes AiOvar: as if it 
were not the word mAagi which alone occasions difficulty. Again, Tischendorf 
enumerates Cod. E (Paul) among his authorities. Had he then forgotten that E 
is ‘nothing better than a transcript of Cod. D (Claromontanus), made by some 
ignorant person’? that ‘the Greek zs manifestly worthless, and that it should 
long since have been removed from the list of authorities’? [Scrivener’s Introd., 
4th edit., i.177. See also Traditional Text, p. 65, and note. Tischendorf is 
frequently inaccurate in his references to the Fathers. ] 

7 Scrivener’s Introd. ii. 254. 

1° A in the Epistles differs from A in the Gospels. 

*” Besides GLP and the following cursives,—29, 30, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 55, 
74, 104, 106, 109, 112, 113, 115, 137, 219, 221, 238, 252, 255, 257, 2602, 277. 


are all five of the number,—Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, one and all adopt 
and advocate the awkward blunder’. Kapdiats is also 
adopted by the Revisers of 1881 without so much as a 
hint let fall in the margin that the evidence is overwhelm- 
ingly against themselves and in favour of the traditional 
Text of the Authorized Version *. 

1 That I may not be accused of suppressing what is to be said on the other 
side, let it be here added that the sum of the adverse evidence (besides the 
testimony of many MSS.) is the Harkleian version :—the doubtful testimony of 
Eusebius (for, though Valerius reads xapdias, the MSS. largely preponderate 
which read xapdias in H. E. Mart. Pal. cxiii. § 6. See Burton’s ed. p. 637) :— 
Cyril in one place, as explained above :—and lastly, a quotation from Chrysostom 
on the Maccabees, given in Cramer’s Catena, vii. 595 (év mAagi xapdias capxivass), 
which reappears at the end of eight lines without the word mAagi. 

2 [The papers on Assimilation and Attraction were left by the Dean in the 
same portfolio. No doubt he would have separated them, if he had lived to 
complete his work, and amplified his treatment of the latter, for the materials 
under that head were scanty.—For 2 Cor. iii. 3, see also a note of my own to 
p. 65 of The Traditional Text.] 


[WE have now to consider the largest of all classes of 
corrupt variations from the genuine Text ',—the omission 
of words and clauses and sentences,—a truly fertile province 
of inquiry. Omissions are much in favour with a particular 
school of critics ; though a habit of admitting them whether 
in ancient or modern times cannot but be symptomatic of 
a tendency to scepticism. | 

§ 1. 

Omissions are often treated as ‘ Various Readings.’ Yet 
only by an Hibernian licence can words omitted be so 
reckoned: for in truth the very essence of the matter is 
that on such occasions nothing is read. It is to the case of 
words omitted however that this chapter is to be exclusively 
devoted. And it will be borne in mind that I speak now 
of those words alone where the words are observed to exist 
in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred, so to speak ;—being 
away only from that hundredth copy. 

Now it becomes evident, as soon as attention has been 
called to the circumstance, that such a phenomenon 
requires separate treatment. Words so omitted labour 
prima facie under a disadvantage which is all their own. 

? It will be observed that these are empirical, not logical, classes. Omissions 
are found in many of the rest. 


My meaning will be best illustrated if I may be allowed to 
adduce and briefly discuss a few examples. And I will 
begin with a crucial case ;—the most conspicuous doubtless 
within the whole compass of the New Testament. I mean 
the last twelve verses of St. Mark’s Gospel; which verses 
are either bracketed off, or else entirely severed from the 
rest of the Gospel, by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and 

The warrant of those critics for dealing thus uncere- 
moniously with a portion of the sacred deposit is the fact 
that whereas Eusebius, for the statement rests solely with 
him, declares that anciently many copies were without the 
verses in question, our two oldest extant MSS. conspire in 
omitting them. But, I reply, the latter circumstance does 
not conduct to the inference that those verses are’ spurious. 
It only proves that the statement of Eusebius was correct. 
The Father cited did not, as is evident from his words}, 
himself doubt the genuineness of the verses in question ; 
but admitted them to be genuine. [He quotes two opinions ; 
—the opinion of an advocate who questions their genuine- 
ness, and an opposing opinion which he evidently considers 
the better of the two, since he rests upon the latter and 
casts a slur upon the former as being an off-hand expe- 
dient; besides that he quotes several words out of the 
twelve verses, and argues at great length upon the second 

On the other hand, one and that the least faulty of the 
two MSS. witnessing for the omission confesses mutely its 
error by leaving a vacant space where the omitted verses 
should have come in; whilst the other was apparently 
copied from an exemplar containing the verses*. And all 
the other copies insert them, except L and a few cursives 

1 Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, chapter v. and Appendix B. 
2 See Dr. Gwynn’s remarks in Appendix VII of The Traditional Text, 

pp. 298-301. 
If. K 


which propose a manifestly spurious substitute for the 
verses,—together with all the versions, except one Old 
Latin (k), the Lewis Codex, two Armenian MSS. and an 
Arabic Lectionary,—besides more than ninety testimonies in 
their favour from more than ‘ forty-four’ ancient witnesses? ; 
—such is the evidence which weighs down the conflicting 
testimony over and over and over again. Beyond all this, 
the cause of the error is patent. Some scribe mistook the 
Tédos occurring at the end of an Ecclesiastical Lection at 
the close of chapter xvi. 8 for the ‘End’ of St. Mark’s 
Gospel ?. 

That is the simple truth: and the question will now be 
asked by an intelligent reader, ‘If such is the balance of 
evidence, how is it that learned critics still doubt the 
genuineness of those verses ?’ 

To this question there can be but one answer, viz. 
‘Because those critics are blinded by invincible prejudice 
in favour of two unsafe guides, and on behalf of Omission.’ 

We have already seen enough of the character of those 
guides, and are now anxious to learn what there can be in 
omissions which render them so acceptable to minds of 
the present day. And we can imagine nothing except the 
halo which has gathered round the detection of spurious 
passages in modern times, and has extended to a supposed 
detection of passages which in fact are not spurious. Some 
people appear to feel delight if they can prove any charge 
against people who claim to be orthodox; others without 
any such feeling delight in superior criticism; and the 
flavour of scepticism especially commends itself to the taste 
of many. To the votaries of such criticism, omissions of 

* The Revision Revised, pp. 42-45, 422-424: Traditional Text, p. 109, where 
thirty-eight testimonies are quoted before 400 A.D. 

* The expression of Jerome, that almost all the Greek MSS. omit this 
passage, is only a translation of Eusebius. It cannot express his own opinion, 
for he admitted the twelve verses into the Vulgate, and quoted parts of them 
twice, i.e. ver. 9, ii. 744-5, ver. 14, i. 327 ¢. 


passages which they style ‘interpolations,’ offer temptingly 
spacious hunting-fields. 

Yet the experience of copyists would pronounce that 
Omission is the besetting fault of transcribers. It is so 
easy under the influence of the desire of accomplishing 
a task, or at least of anxiety for making progress, to pass 
over a word, a line, or even more lines than one. As has 
been explained before, the eye readily moves from one 
ending to a similar ending with a surprising tendency to 
pursue the course which would lighten labour instead of 
increasing it. The cumulative result of such abridgement 
by omission on the part of successive scribes may be easily 
imagined, and in fact is just what is presented in Codex B?. 
Besides these considerations, the passages which are omitted, 
and which we claim to be genuine, bear in themselves the 
character belonging to the rest of the Gospels, indeed—in 
Dr. Hort’s expressive phrase—‘have the true ring of 
genuineness.’ They are not like some which some critics 
of the same school would fain force upon us*. But beyond 
all,—and this is the real source and ground of attestation, 
—they enjoy superior evidence from copies, generally 
beyond comparison with the opposing testimony, from 
Versions, and from Fathers.] 

§ 2. 

The fact seems to be all but overlooked that a very much 
larger amount of proof than usual is required at the hands 
of those who would persuade us to cancel words which have 

1 Dr. Dobbin has calculated 330 omissions in St. Matthew, 365 in St. Mark, 
439 in St. Luke, 357 in St. John, 384 in the Acts, and 681 in the Epistles— 
2,556 in all as far as Heb. ix. 14, where it terminates. Dublin University 
Magazine, 1859, p. 620. 

2 Such as in Cod. D after St. Luke vi. 4. ‘On the same day He beheld 
a certain man working on the sabbath, and said unto him, “ Man, blessed art 
thou if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed 
and a transgressor of the law”’’ (Scrivener’s translation, Introduction, p. 8). So 
also a longer interpolation from the Curetonian after St. Matt. xx. 28. These 
are condemned by internal evidence as well as external. 

K 2 


been hitherto by all persons,—in all ages,—in all countries, 
—regarded as inspired Scripture. They have (1) to account 
for the fact of those words’ existence: and next (2), to 
demonstrate that they have no right to their place in the 
sacred page. The discovery that from a few copies they 
are away, clearly has very little to do with the question. 
We may be able to account for the omission from those 
few copies: and the instant we have done this, the negative 
evidence—the argument e szlentio—has been effectually 
disposed of. A very different task—a far graver respon- 
sibility—is imposed upon the adverse party, as may be 
easily shewn. [They must establish many modes of ac- 
counting for many classes and groups of evidence. Broad 
and sweeping measures are now out of date. The burden 
of proof lies with them. | 

§ 3. 

The force of what I am saying will be best understood 
if a few actual specimens of omission may be adduced, and 
individually considered. And first, let us take the case of 
an omitted word. In St. Luke vi. 1 devrepotpdére is omitted 
from some MSS. Westcott and Hort and the Revisers 
accordingly exhibit the text of that place as follows :— 
*Eyéveto 6& év caBBatw b.aTopeverOar adroy 81a oroplywr. 

Now I desire to be informed how it is credible that so 
very difficult and peculiar a word as this,—for indeed the 
expression has never yet been satisfactorily explained,— 
should have found its way into every known Evangelium 
except NBL and a few cursives, if it be spurious? How it 
came to be here and there omitted, is intelligible enough. 


in order to see that the like ending (TW) in the superior . 
line, fully accounts for the omission of the second line. 
(5) A proper lesson begins at this place; which by itself 
would explain the phenomenon. (c) Words which the 

(a) One has but to glance at the Cod. 8 


copyists were at a loss to understand, are often observed 
to be dropped: and there is no harder word in the Gospels 
than devrepdrpwros. But I repeat,—will you tell us how 
it is conceivable that [a word nowhere else found, and 
known to be a crux to commentators and others, should 
have crept into all the copies except a small handful ?| 

In reply to all this, I shall of course be told that really 
I must yield to what is after all the weight of external 
evidence: that Codd. NBL are not ordinary MSS. but 
first-class authorities, of sufficient importance to outweigh 
any number of the later cursive MSS. 

My rejoinder is plain:—Not only am I of course 
willing to yield to external evidence, but it is precisely 
‘external evidence’ which makes me insist on retaining 
devrepompsto—and pedicolov Knplov—dpas Tov oTavpdv—Kal 
dveépeto eis Tov ovpavdv—éray éxAlanre—the 14th verse of 
St. Matthew’s xxiiird chapter—and the last twelve verses 
of St. Mark’s Gospel. For my own part, I entirely deny 
the cogency of the proposed proof, and I have clearly already 
established the grounds of my refusal. Who then is to be 
the daysman between us? We are driven back on first 
principles, in order to ascertain if it may not be possible to 
meet on some common ground, and by the application of 
ordinary logical principles of reasoning to clear our view. 
[As to these we must refer the reader to the first 
volume of this work. Various cases of omission have been 
just quoted, and many have been discussed elsewhere. 
Accordingly, it will not be necessary to exhibit this 
large class of corruptions at the length which it would 
otherwise demand. But a few more instances are required, 
in order that the reader may see in this connexion that 
many passages at least which the opposing school designate 
as Interpolations are really genuine, and that students 
may be placed upon their guard against the source of 
error that we are discussing. | 


§ 4. 

And first as to the rejection of an entire verse. 

The 44th verse of St. Matt. xxi, consisting of the fifteen 
words printed at foot’, is marked as doubtful by Tregelles, 
Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers:—by Tischendorf it 
is rejected as spurious. We insist that, on the contrary, 
it is indubitably genuine; reasoning from the antiquity, the 
variety, the respectability, the largeness, or rather, the 
general unanimity of its attestation. 

For the verse is found in the Old Latin, and in the Vul- 
gate,—in the Peshitto, Curetonian, and Harkleian Syriac,— 
besides in the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. 
It is found also in Origen *,—ps.-Tatian *—Aphraates +,— 
Chrysostom °,—Cyril Alex.*,—the Opus Imperfectum *,— 
Jerome *,—Augustine ®:—in Codexes BNC®2>XZATIEFG 
HKLMSUV,—in short, it is attested by every known 
Codex except two of bad character, viz.—D, 33; together 
with five copies of the Old Latin, viz.—a b e ff! ff?. There 
have therefore been adduced for the verse in dispute at 
least five witnesses of the second or third century :— 
at least eight of the fourth :—at least seven if not eight 
of the fifth: after which date the testimony in favour of 

‘ Kai 6 neadw ext Tov AiBov TovTov ovvOAacOnceTa ep’ dy F dy nécy, AKpHoe 


* iv. 25 d, 343d.—What proves these two quotations to be from St. Matt. 
xxi. 44, and not from St. Luke xx. 18, is, that they alike exhibit expressions 
which are peculiar to the earlier Gospel. The first is introduced by the formula 
oddémore dvéywre (ver. 42: comp. Orig. ii. 794 c), and both exhibit the expres- 
sion énl roy Aiov TodTov (ver. 44), Not én’ éxeivoy Toy AiBov. Vainly is it urged 
on the opposite side, that mas 6 meowy belongs to St. Luke,—whereas xal 
6 meody is the phrase found in St. Matthew’s Gospel. Chrysostom (vii. 672) 
writes 7as 6 mimrav while professing to quote from St. Matthew; and the author 
of Cureton’s Syriac, who had this reading in his original, does the same. 

SP s192; one 

® vii. 672 a [freely quoted as Greg. Naz. in the Catena of Nicetas, p. 669] 
xii. 27 d. 

§ Ap. Mai, ii. 401 dis. 7 Ap. Chrys. vi. 171 c. 8 vii. 171 d. 

* iii’. 86, 245: v. 500 e, 598 d. 


this verse is overwhelming. How could we be justified in 
opposing to such a mass of first-rate testimony the solitary 
evidence of Cod. D (concerning which see above, Vol. I. 
c. viii.) supported only by a single errant Cursive and 
a little handful of copies of the Old Latin versions, [even 
although the Lewis Codex has joined this petty band ?] 

But, says Tischendorf,—the verse is omitted by Origen 
and by Eusebius,—by Irenaeus and by Lucifer of Cagliari,— 
as well as by Cyril of Alexandria. I answer, this most 
insecure of arguments for mutilating the traditional text 
is plainly inadmissible on the present occasion. The critic 
refers to the fact that Irenaeus', Origen*, Eusebius * and 
Cyril* having quoted ‘the parable of the wicked husband- 
men’ zz extenso (viz. from verse 33 to verse 43). leave off at 
verse 43. Why may they not leave off where the parable 
leaves off? Why should they quote any further? Verse 
44 is nothing to their purpose. And since the Gospel for 
Monday morning in Holy Week [verses 18-43], in every 
known copy of the Lectionary actually ends at verse 43,— 
why should not their quotation of it end at the same verse? 
But, unfortunately for the critic, Origen and Cyril (as we 
have seen,—the latter expressly,) elsewhere actually quote 
the verse in dispute. And how can Tischendorf maintain 
that Lucifer yields adverse testimony®? That Father 
quotes nothing but verse 43, which is all he requires for 
his purpose*®. Why should he have also quoted verse 44, 
which he does not require? As well might it be main- 
tained that Macarius Egyptius’? and Philo of Carpasus'* 
omit verse 44, because (like Lucifer) they only quote 
verse 43. 

I have elsewhere explained what I suspect occasioned 
the omission of St. Matt. xxi. 44 from a few Western 

1 682-3 (Massuet 277). 2 iii. 786. 
% Theoph. 235-6 ( = Mai, iv. 122). * ii. 660 a, b, c. 
5 ¢Praeterit et Lucifer.’ 6 Ap. Galland. vi. 191 d. 

7 Ibid. vii. 20 c. § Ibid. ix. 768 a, 


copies of the Gospels’. Tischendorf’s opinion that this 
verse is a fabricated imitation of the parallel verse in 
St. Luke’s Gospel? (xx. 18) is clearly untenable. Either 
place has its distinctive type, which either has maintained 
all down the ages. The single fact that St. Matt. xxi. 44 
in the Peshitto version has a sectional number to itself? is 
far too weighty to be set aside on nothing better than 
suspicion. Ifa verse so elaborately attested as the present 
be not genuine, we must abandon all hope of ever attaining 
to any certainty concerning the Text of Scripture. 

In the meantime there emerges from the treatment 
which St. Matt. xxi. 44 has experienced at the hands 
of Tischendorf, the discovery that, in the estimation of 
Tischendorf, Cod. D [is a document of so much importance 
as occasionally to outweigh almost by itself the other 
copies of all ages and countries in Christendom. | 

§ 5. 

I am guided to my next example, viz. the text of 
St. Matt. xv. 8, by the choice deliberately made of that 
place by Dr. Tregelles in order to establish the peculiar 
theory of Textual Revision which he advocates so 
strenuously ; and which, ever since the days of Gries- 
bach, has it must be confessed enjoyed the absolute 
confidence of most of the illustrious editors of the New 

1 (1 am unable to find any place in the Dean’s writings where he has made 
this explanation. The following note, however, is appended here] :— 

With verse 43, the long lesson for the Monday in Holy-week (ver. 18-43) 
comes to an end. 

Verse 44 has a number all to itself (in other words, is sect. 265) in the fifth 
of the Syrian Canons,—which contains whatever is found exclusively in 
St. Matthew and St. Luke. 

? «Omnino ex Le, assumpta videntur.’ 

* The section in St. Matthew is numbered 265,—in St. Luke, 274: both being 
referred to Canon V, in which St. Matthew and St. Luke are exclusively com- 


Testament. This is, in fact, the second example on 
Tregelles’ list. In approaching it, I take leave to point 
out that that learned critic unintentionally hoodwinks his 
readers by not setting before them in full the problem 
which he proposes to discuss. Thoroughly to understand 
this matter, the student should be reminded that there is © 
found in St. Matt. xv. 8,—and parallel to it in St. Mark 
vii. 6,— 

St. Matt. 
‘Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah 
prophesy of you saying, “ This 
people draweth nigh unto Me 

St. Marx. 
‘Well did Isaiah prophesy of 
you, hypocrites, as it is written, 
“This people honoureth Me 

with their mouth and honoureth 
me with their lips (éyyifer pot 

with their lips (obros 6 Aads rois 
xetAeoi pe ta), but their heart 
6 Aads otros TH oTduatt aitav, kat is far from Me.”’ 

Tots xeiAeoi pe tyG*), but their 

heart is far from Me.”’ 

The place of Isaiah referred to, viz. ch. xxix. 13, reads 
as follows in the ordinary editions of the LXX :—xai ize 
Kupuos, éyyier pot 6 Aads obTos ev TO oTdpaTt adTod, Kal ey Tois 
xelAeow aitév Tysdol pe. 

Now, about the text of St. Mark in this place no 
question is raised. Neither is there any various reading 
worth speaking of in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred 
in respect of the text in St. Matthew. But when reference 
is made to the two oldest copies in existence, B and &, we 
are presented with what, but for the parallel place in 
St. Mark, would have appeared to us a strangely abbrevi- 
ated reading. Both MSS. conspire in exhibiting St. Matt. 
xv. 8, as follows :—6 Aads obros Tois xelAeot we Tyg. So that 
six words (éyyiGe por and to ordyar. adtév, kat) are not 
recognized by them: in which peculiarity they are coun- 
tenanced by DLT*, two cursive copies, and the. follow- 
ing versions:—Old Latin except f, Vulgate, Curetonian, 
Lewis, Peshitto, and Bohairic, (Cod. A, the Sahidic and 
Gothic versions, being imperfect here.) To this evidence, 


Tischendorf adds a phalanx of Fathers :—Clemens Romanus 
(A.D. 70), Ptolemaeus the Gnostic (A.D. 150), Clemens 
Alexandrinus (A. D. 190), Origen in three places (A.D. 210), 
Eusebius (A.D. 325), Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysos- 
tom: and Alford supplies also Justin Martyr (A.D. 150). 
The testimony of Didymus (A.D. 350), which has been 
hitherto overlooked, is express. Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, 
are naturally found to follow the Latin copies. Such a weight 
of evidence may not unreasonably inspire Dr. Tregelles 
with an exceeding amount of confidence. Accordingly he 
declares ‘that this one passage might be relied upon as an 
important proof that it is the few MSS. and not the many 
which accord with ancient testimony.’ Availing himself 
of Dr. Scrivener’s admission of ‘the possibility that the 
disputed words in the great bulk of the MSS. were inserted 
from the Septuagint of Isaiah xxix. 131,’ Dr. Tregelles 
insists ‘that on every true principle of textual criticism, the 
words must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from 
the Prophet. This naturally explains their introduction,’ 
(he adds); ‘and when once they had gained a footing in 
the text, it is certain that they would be multiplied by 
copyists, who almost always preferred to make passages 
as full and complete as possible’ (p. 139). Dr. Tregelles 
therefore relies upon this one passage,—not so much as 
a ‘proof that it is the few MSS. and not the many which 
accord with ancient testimony’ ;—for one instance cannot 
possibly prove that; and that is after all beside the real 
question ;—but, as a proof that we are to regard the text 
of Codd. BN in this place as genuine, and the text of all the 
other Codexes in the world as corrupt. 

The reader has now the hypothesis fully before him by 
which from the days of Griesbach it has been proposed 
to account for the discrepancy between ‘the few copies’ on 

Vol. i. 13. 


the one hand, and the whole torrent of manuscript evidence 
on the other. : 

Now, as Iam writing a book on the principles of Textual 
Criticism, I must be allowed to set my reader on his guard 
against all such unsupported dicta as the preceding, though 
enforced with emphasis and recommended by a deservedly 
respected name. I venture to think that the exact reverse 
will be found to be a vast deal nearer the truth: viz. that 
undoubtedly spurious readings, although they may at one 
time or other have succeeded in obtaining a footing in 
MSS., and to some extent may be observed even to have 
propagated themselves, are yet discovered to die out 
speedily ; seldom indeed to leave any considerable number 
of descendants. There has always in fact been a process 
of elimination going on, as well as of self-propagation : 
a corrective force at work, as well as one of deterioration. 
How else are we to account for the utter disappearance 
of the many monstra potius quam variae lectiones which 
the ancients nevertheless insist were prevalent in their 
times? It is enough to appeal to a single place in Jerome, 
in illustration of what I have been saying’. To return 
however from this digression. 

We are invited then to believe,—for it is well to know 
at the outset exactly what is required of us,—that from the 
fifth century downwards every extant copy of the Gospels 
except five (DLT*, 33, 124) exhibits a text arbitrarily inter- 
polated in order to bring it into conformity with the Greek 
version of Isa, xxix. 13. On this wild hypothesis I have 
the following observations to make :— 

1. It is altogether unaccountable, if this be indeed a true 
account of the matter, how it has come to pass that in 
no single MS. in the world, so far as I am aware, has this 
conformity been successfully achieved: for whereas the 

1 Letter to Pope Damasus. See my book on St. Mark, p. 28. 


Septuagintal reading is éyyi(er por 6 Aads obros EN ro 
ordpatt AYTOY, xai EN tots xefAcoww AYTQN TIMQSI pe,— 
the Evangelical Text is observed to differ therefrom in no 
less than six particulars. 

2. Further,—If there really did exist this strange deter- 
mination on the part of the ancients in general to assimilate 
the text of St. Matthew to the text of Isaiah, how does 
it happen that not one of them ever conceived the like 
design in respect of the parallel place in St. Mark? 

3. It naturally follows to inquire,—Why are we to suspect 
the mass of MSS. of having experienced such wholesale 
depravation in respect of the text of St. Matthew in this 
place, while yet we recognize in them such a marked 
constancy to their own peculiar type; which however, as 
already explained, is zo¢ the text of Isaiah? 

4. Further,—I discover in this place a minute illustration 
of the general fidelity of the ancient copyists: for whereas 
in St. Matthew it is invariably 6 Aads otros, I observe that 
in the copies of St. Mark,—except to be sure in (a) Codd. 
B and D, (4) copies of the Old Latin, (¢) the Vulgate, and 
(d) the Peshitto (all of which are confessedly corrupt in 
this particular,)—it is invariably otros 6 Aads. But now,— 
Is it reasonable that the very copies which have been in 
this way convicted of licentiousness in respect of St. Mark 
vii. 6 should be permitted to dictate to us against the great 
heap of copies in respect of their exhibition of St. Matt. 
RV. Or 

And yet, if the discrepancy between Codd. B and NS and 
the great bulk of the copies in this place did not originate 
in the way insisted on by the critics, how is it to be 
accounted for? Now, on ordinary occasions, we do not 
feel ourselves called upon to institute any such inquiry,— 
as indeed very seldom would it be practicable to do. 
Unbounded licence of transcription, flagrant carelessness, 
arbitrary interpolations, omissions without number, disfigure 


those two ancient MSS. in every page. We seldom trouble 
ourselves to inquire into the history of their obliquities. 
But the case is of course materially changed when so 
many of the oldest of the Fathers and all the oldest 
Versions seem to be at one with Codexes B and &. Let 
then the student favour me with his undivided attention 
for a few moments, and I will explain to him how the 
misapprehension of Griesbach, Tischendorf, Tregelles and 
the rest, has arisen. About the MSS. and the Versions 
these critics are sufficiently accurate: but they have fatally 
misapprehended the import of the Patristic evidence; as 
I proceed to explain. 

The established Septuagintal rendering of Isa. xxix. 13 
in the Apostolic age proves to have been this,—Eyyie: por 
6 dads obros Tots xeiAcow adTGv TinGoi pe: the words év ro 
ordéuatt aitév, Kal év being omitted. This is certain. 
Justin Martyr! and Cyril of Alexandria in two places? 
so quote the passage. Procopius Gazaeus in his Com- 
mentary on Origen’s Hexapla of Isaiah says expressly that 
the six words in question were introduced into the text of 
the Septuagint by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. 
Accordingly they are often observed to be absent from 
MSS. They are not found, for example, in the Codex 

But the asyndeton resulting from the suppression of 
these words was felt to be intolerable. In fact, without 
a colon point between otros and trois, the result is without 
meaning. When once the complementary words have 
been withdrawn, éyyifec po. at the beginning of the 
sentence is worse than superfluous. It fatally encumbers 
the sense. To drop those two words, after the example 
of the parallel place in St. Mark’s Gospel, became thus 

? Dial. § 78, ad fin. (p. 272). 
2 Opp. ii. 215 a: v. part ii. 118 c. 
3 See Holmes and Parsons’ ed. of the LX X,—vol. iv. 27 Zoc. 


an obvious proceeding. Accordingly the author of the 
(so-called) second Epistle of Clemens Romanus (§ 3), 
professing to quote the place in the prophet Isaiah, 
exhibits it thus, —‘O Aads obros Trois xelAeoi we Tug. Clemens 
Alexandrinus certainly does the same thing on at least two 
occasions?. So does Chrysostom’. So does Theodoret *. 

Two facts have thus emerged, which entirely change the 
aspect of the problem: the first, (2) That the words év re 
oTdpuat. avray, kal év were anciently absent from the Septua- 
gintal rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13: the second, (4) that 
the place of Isaiah was freely quoted by the ancients 
without the initial words éyyi(er por. 

And after this discovery will any one be so perverse as 
to deny that on the contrary it must needs be Codexes 
B and WN, and not the great bulk of the MSS., which 
exhibit a text corrupted by the influence of the Septuagint 
rendering of Isaiah xxix. 13? The precise extent to which 
the assimilating influence of the parallel place in St. Mark’s 
Gospel has been felt by the copyists, I presume not to 
determine. The essential point is that the omission from 
St. Matthew xv. 8 of the words To oréuart adrév, xai, is 
certainly due in the first instance to the ascertained 
Septuagint omission of those very words in Isaiah xxix. 13. 

But that the text of St. Mark vii. 6 has exercised an 
assimilating influence on the quotation from Isaiah is 
demonstrable. For there can be no doubt that Isaiah's 
phrase (retained by St. Matthew) is 6 Aads obros,—St. Mark's 
ovtos 6 Aads. And yet, when Clemens Romanus quotes Isaiah, 
he begins—oitros 6 Xads *; and so twice does Theodoret ®. 

The reader is now in a position to judge how much 

* Opp. pp. 143 and 206. P. 577 is allusive only. 

* Opp. vii. 158 c: ix. 638 b. 3 Opp. ii. 1345: iii. 763-4. 

* § xv:—on which his learned editor (Bp. Jacobson) pertinently remarks,— 
‘ Hunc locum Prophetae Clemens exhibuisset sicut a Christo laudatum, S. Marc. 
vii. 6, si pro dweorw dedisset dméyet.’ 

5 Opp. i. 1502: iii, 1114. 


attention is due to Dr. Tregelles’ dictum ‘that this one 
passage may be relied upon’ in support of the peculiar 
views he advocates: as well as to his confident claim that 
the fuller text which is found in ninety-nine MSS. out of 
a hundred ‘ must be regarded as an amplification borrowed 
from the prophet.’ It has been shewn in answer to the 
learned critic that in the ancient Greek text of the prophet 
the ‘amplification’ he speaks of did not exist: it was the 
abbreviated text which was found there. So that the very 
converse of the phenomenon he supposes has taken place. 
Freely accepting his hypothesis that we have here a process 
of assimilation, occasioned by the Septuagintal text of 
Isaiah, we differ from him only as to the direction in 
which that process has manifested itself. He assumes 
that the bulk of the MSS. have been conformed to the 
generally received reading of Isaiah xxix. 13. But it has 
been shewn that, on the contrary, it is the two oldest MSS. 
which have experienced assimilation. Their prototypes were 
depraved in this way at an exceedingly remote period. 

To state this matter somewhat differently.—In all the 
extant uncials but five, and in almost every known cursive 
copy of the Gospels, the words t@ oréuati aitév, kai are 
found to belong to St. Matt. xv. 8. How is the presence of 
those words to be accounted for? The reply is obvious :— 
By the fact that they must have existed in the original 
autograph of the Evangelist. Such however is not the 
reply of Griesbach and his followers. They insist that 
beyond all doubt those words must have been imported 
into the Gospel from Isaiah xxix. But I have shewn that 
this is impossible; because, at the time spoken of, the 
words in question had no place in the Greek text of the 
prophet. And this discovery exactly reverses the problem, 
and brings out the directly opposite result. For now we 
discover that we have rather to inquire how is the absence 
of the words in question from those few MSS. out of the 


mass to be accounted for? The two oldest Codexes are 
convicted of exhibiting a text which has been corrupted 
by the influence of the oldest Septuagint reading of Isaiah 
XIX. EF. : 

I freely admit that it is in a high degree remarkable that 
five ancient Versions, and all the following early writers,— 
Ptolemaeus?, Clemens Alexandrinus?, Origen*, Didymus ?, 
Cyril®, Chrysostom ®, and possibly three others of like 
antiquity 7,—should all quote St. Matthew in this place 
from a faulty text. But this does but prove at how 
extremely remote a period the corruption must have begun. 
It probably dates from the first century. Especially does 
it seem to shew how distrustful we should be of our oldest 
authorities when, as here, they are plainly at variance with 
the whole torrent of manuscript authority. This is indeed 
no ordinary case. There are elements of distrust here, 
such as are not commonly encountered. 

§ 6. 
What I have been saying is aptly illustrated by a place 
in our LORD’s Sermon on the Mount: viz. St. Matt. v. 44; 
which in almost every MS. in existence stands as follows : 


(1) dyanare rods exOpovs tydr, 

(2) edAoyeire Tovs KaTapwpevovs tps, 

(3) KadGs moveire Tols picodow® was, 
\ , eat n 5] , en 

(4) kal mpocedyecbe tntp tav ennpeaovtwy tyas, 

(5) kat dtoxdvtov tyas%. 

1 Ap. Epiphanium, Opp. i. 218 d. 2 Opp. p. 461. 

3 Opp. iii. 492 (a remarkable place): ii. 723: iv. 121. 

* De Trinitate, p. 242. 

5 Opp. ii. 413 b. [Observe how this evidence leads us to Alexandria. ] 

6 Opp. vii. 522 d. The other place, ix. 638 b, is uncertain. 

7 It is uncertain whether Eusebius and Basil quote St. Matthew or Isaiah: 
but a contemporary of Chrysostom certainly quotes the Gospel,—Chrys. Opp. 
vi. 425 d (cf. p. 417, line 10). 

8 But Eus. £55 rods p. 

® I have numbered the clauses for convenience.—It will perhaps facilitate the 


On the other hand, it is not to be denied that there 
exists an appreciable body of evidence for exhibiting the 
passage in a shorter form. The fact that Origen six times! 
reads the place thus: 

ayamare Tovs éxOpovs tar, 
kal mpocevxerbe trtp TGv Swwxdvtwy tas. 
(which amounts to a rejection of the second, third, and 
fourth clauses ;}—and that he is supported therein by BN, 
(besides a fewcursives) the Curetonian, the Lewis, several Old 
Latin MSS., and the Bohairic?, seems to critics of a certain 
school a circumstance fatal to the credit of those clauses. 
They are aware that Cyprian, and they are welcome to 
the information that Tertullian * once and Theodoret once® 
[besides Irenaeus ®, Eusebius’, and Gregory of Nyssa®] 
exhibit the place in the same way. So does the author of 
the Dialogus contra Marcionitas*®,—whom however I take 
to be Origen. Griesbach, on far slenderer evidence, was 
for obelizing all the three clauses. But Lachmann, Tre- 
gelles, Tischendorf and the Revisers reject them entirely. 
I am persuaded that they are grievously mistaken in 
so doing, and that the received text represents what 
‘St. Matthew actually wrote. It is the text of all the 
uncials but two, of all the cursives but six or seven; and 
this alone ought to be decisive. But it is besides the 

study of this place, if (on my own responsibility) I subjoin a representation of 
the same words in Latin :— 
(1) Diligite inimicos vestros, 
(2) benedicite maledicentes vos, 
(3) benefacite odientibus vos, 
(4) et orate pro calumniantibus vos, 
(5) et persequentibus vos. 
1 Opp. iv. 324 d2s, 329 bis, 351. Gall. xiv. App. 106. 
2A large majority, all but five, omit it. Some add it in the margin.’ 
Traditional Text, p. 149. 

- Opp. p. te 146. ; oes es S 
Opp. iv. 946. aer. III. xviii. 5. 
7 Dem. Evan. xiii. 7. 8 In Bapt. Christ. 

® Orig. Opp. i. 812. 
II. L 


reading of the Peshitto, the Harkleian, and the Gothic; 
as well as of three copies of the Old Latin. 

Let us however inquire more curiously for the evidence 
of Versions and Fathers on this subject; remembering 
that the point in dispute is nothing else but the genuine- 
ness of clauses 2, 3, 4. And here, at starting, we make 
the notable discovery that Origen, whose practice was 
relied on for retaining none but the first and the fifth 
clauses,—himself twice! quotes the first clause in connexion 
with the fourth: while Theodoret, on two occasions”, con- 
nects with clause 1 what he evidently means for clause 2; 
and Tertullian once if not twice connects closely clauses 
I, 2; and once, clauses 1, 2, 5%. From which it is plain 
that neither Origen nor Theodoret, least of all Tertullian, 
can be held to disallow the clauses in question. They 
recognize them on the contrary, which is simply a fatal 
circumstance, and effectively disposes of their supposed 
hostile evidence. 

But in fact the Western Church yields unfaltering 
testimony. Besides the three copies of the Old Latin 
which exhibit all the five clauses, the Vulgate retains the 
first, third, fifth and fourth. Augustine* quotes consecu- 
tively clauses 1, 3, 5: Ambrose® clauses 1, 3, 4, 5—1, 4; 5: 
Hilary °, clauses 1, 4, 5, and (apparently) 2, 4, 5: Lucifer’, 
clauses 1, 2, 3 (apparently), 5: pseudo-Epiphanius*® con- 
nects clauses I, 3,—1, 3, 5: and Pacian®, clauses 5, 2. 
Next we have to ascertain what is the testimony of the 
Greek Fathers. 

And first we turn to Chrysostom ! who (besides quoting 

2 Opp. i. 768: iv. 353. ? Opp. i. 827: ii. 399. 

$ Spect. c. 16: (Anim. c. 35): Pat. c. 6. 

* [In Ep. Joh. IV. Tract. ix. 3 (1, 3 (ver. 45 &c.)); In Ps. exxxviii. 27 (1, 3); 
Serm. XV. 8 (1, 3, 5); Serm. LXII. 22 Joc. (1, 3, 4, 5)-] 

5 In Ps. xxxviii. 2. ° Opp. pp. 303, 297. 

7 Pro S. Athanas. ii. ® Ps, cxviii. 10. 16; 9. 9. 9 Ep. ii. 

10 Opp. iii. 167: iv. 619: v. 436:—ii. 340: v. 56: xii. 654 :—ii. 258: iii. 
41 :—iv. 267: xii. 425. 


the fourth clause from St. Matthew’s Gospel by itself five 
times) quotes consecutively clauses 1, 3—iii. 167; 1, 4— 
iv. 619; 2, 4—v. 436; 4, 3—ii. 340, v. 56, xii. 654; 4, 5— 
li, 258, ili. 3415 1, 2, 4—iv. 267; I, 3, 4, 5—xii. 425; thus 
recognizing them a//. 

Gregory Nyss.* quotes connectedly clauses 3, 4, 5. 

Eusebius ?, clauses 4, 5—2, 4, 5—I, 3, 4, 5- 

The Apostolic Constitutions * (third century), clauses 1, 
3, 4, 5 (having immediately before quoted clause 2,)—also 
clauses 2, 4, I 

Clemens Alex.* (A. D. 192), clauses 1, 2, 4. 

Athenagoras ® (A.D. 177), clauses 1, 2, 5. 

Theophilus * (A.D. 168), clauses 1, 4. 

While Justin M.7 (A.D. 140) having paraphrased clause 1, 
connects therewith clauses 2 and 4. 

And Polycarp® (A.D. 108) apparently connects clauses 
4 and 5. 

Didache® (A.D. 100?) quotes 2, 4, 5 and combines 1 and 3 
(pp. 5, 6). 

In the face of all this evidence, no one it is presumed 
will any more be found to dispute the genuineness of the 
generally received reading in St. Matt. v. 44. All must 
see that if the text familiarly known in the age immediately 
after that of the Apostles had been indeed the bald, curt 
thing which the critics imagine, viz. 

ayanrare tovs éxOpovs tyar, 

kat mpooevyerOe trép TOv diwKdvT@Y tyas,— 
by no possibility could the men of that age in referring to 
St. Matt. v. 44 have freely mentioned ‘blessing those who 
curse,—doing good to those who hate,—and praying for 
those who despitefully use.’ Since there are but two 

? Opp. iii. 379. * Praep. 654: Ps. 137, 699: Es. 589. 
5 Pp. 3, 198. * Opp. p. 605 and 307. 

5 Leg. pro Christian. 11. ® Ad Autolycum, iii. 14. 

7 Opp. i. 40. 8 Ad Philipp. c. 12. * § 1. 

L 2 


alternative readings of the passage,—one longer, one 
briefer,—every clear acknowledgement of a single disputed 
clause in the larger reading necessarily carries with it all | 
the rest. 

This result of ‘comparative criticism’ is therefore respect- 
fully recommended to the notice of the learned. If it be 
not decisive of the point at issue to find such a torrent of 
primitive testimony at one with the bulk of the Uncials 
and Cursives extant, it is clear that there can be no 
Science of Textual Criticism. The Law of Evidence must 
be held to be inoperative in this subject-matter. Nothing 
deserving of the name of ‘ proof’ will ever be attainable in 
this department of investigation. 

But if men admit that the ordinarily received text of 
St. Matt. v. 44 has been clearly established, then let the 
legitimate results of the foregoing discussion be loyally 
recognized. The unique value of Manuscripts in declaring 
the exact text of Scripture—the conspicuous inadequacy 
of Patristic evidence by themselves,—have been made 
apparent: and yet it has been shewn that Patristic quota- 
tions are abundantly sufficient for their proper purpose,— 
which is, to enable us to decide between conflicting readings. 
One more indication has been obtained of the corruptness 
of the text which Origen employed,—concerning which he 
is so strangely communicative,—and of which BN are the 
chief surviving examples; and the probability has been 
strengthened that when these are the sole, or even the 
principal witnesses, for any particular reading, that reading 
will prove to be corrupt. 

Mill was of opinion, (and of course his opinion finds 
favour with Griesbach, Tischendorf, and the rest,) that 
these three clauses have been imported hither from 
St. Luke vi. 27, 28. But, besides that this is mere un- 
supported conjecture, how comes it then to pass that the 
order of the second and third clauses in St. Matthew’s 


Gospel is the reverse of the order in St. Luke’s? No. 
I believe that there has been excision here: for I hold 
with Griesbach that it cannot have been the result of 
accident 1. 

* Theodoret once (iv. 946) gives the verse as Tischendorf gives it: but on 
two other occasions (i. 827: ii. 399) the same Theodoret exhibits the second 
member of the sentence thus,—evAoyerre Tods Sidxovras bpas (so pseud.-Athan. 
ii. 95), which shews how little stress is to be laid on such evidence as the first- 
named place furnishes. 

Origen also (iv. 324 bis, 329 bis, 351) repeatedly gives the place as Tischendorf 
gives it—but on one occasion, which it will be observed is fa¢al to his evidence 
(i. 768), he gives the second member thus,—iv. 353: 

kal mpocevxeabe bmep Tay émnpeaCévTav bpyas. Hot Mab ay © 

Next observe how Clemens Al. (605) handles the same place :— 

dyanate Tods éxOpods iuay, ebrdoyelre Tods KaTapwpévous ipas, Kal mpocedxecbe 
inép TOv émnpeaovTwy byiv, Kal TA Goa. .. I, 2,4.—3, 5- 

Justin M. (i. 40) quoting the same place from memory (and with exceeding 
licence), yet is observed to recognize in part doth the clauses which labour 
under suspicion : . I, 2, 4.—3, 5- 

evxeo0e ittp Tay éxOpav bya Kal dyanGre Tods pcobvTas bpas, which roughly 
represents kai evAoyeiTe Tods KaTapwpévous byiv Kal edxeaOe int p Tay ewnpea- 
Cévrewv tpas. 

The clause which hitherto lacks support is that which regards rods pucodyras 
ipas. But the required help is supplied by Irenaeus (i. 521), who (loosely 
enough) quotes the place thus,— 

Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro ets, gut vos oderunt. 

.. I (made up of 3, 4).—2, 5. 

And yet more by the most venerable witness of all, Polycarp, who writes :— 
ad Philipp. c. 12 :— 

Orate pro persequentibus et odientibus vos. -. 4, 5-—I, 2, 3. 

Ihave examined [Didaché)] Justin, Jrenaeus, Eusebius, Hippolytus, Cyril Al., 
Greg. Naz., Basil, Athan., Didymus, Cyril Hier., Chrys., Greg. Nyss., Epiph., 
Theod., Clemens. 

And the following are the results :— 

Didaché. Evdoyeire rots karapwpévous ipiv, nat rpocedxecde imtp Tav éxOpav 
bpav, vnotevere 52 iwep Tay SioKdvrwv bpas ... ipeis 5 ayanware Tods pcodvras 
pas. “+ 2535 45 5- 

Aphraates, Dem. ii. The Latin Translation rans :—Diligite inimicos vestros, 
benedicite ei qui vobis maledicit, orate pro eis qui vos vexunt et persequuntur. 

Eusebius Pr4¢ 654. .*. 2, 4, 5, omitting I, 3. 

Ps 699. .*. 4,5, omitting I, 2, 3. 
Es 589. .*. I, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2. 

Clemens Al. 605. .°. I, 2, 4, omitting 3, 5. 

Greg. Nyss. iii. 379. .*. 3, 4, 5, omitting 1, 2. 

Vulg. Diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos, et orate pro 
persequentibus et calumniantibus vos. -. I, 3, 5, 4, omitting 2. 



[I take this opportunity to reply to a reviewer in the 
Guardian newspaper, who thought that he had reduced 
the authorities quoted from before A.D. 400 on page 103 
of The Traditional Text to two on our side against 
seven, or rather six’, on the other. Let me first say that 
on this perilous field I am not surprised at being obliged 
to re-judge or withdraw some authorities. I admit that in 
the middle of a long catena of passages, I did not lay 

Hilary, 297. Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibus 
vos ac persequentibus vos. -*. 2, 4, 5, omitting the first and third. 
Hilary, 303. Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac 
persequentibus vos. .. I, 4, 5, omitting the second and third. Cf. 128. 
Cyprian, 79 (cf. 146). Diligite inimicos vestros, et orate pro his qui vos 
persequuntur. -. I, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4. 
Tertullian. Diligite (enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et orate pro maledi- 
centibus vos—which apparently is meant for a quotation of I, 2. 
*. I, 2, omitting 3, 4, 5. 
Tertullian. Diligite (enim) inimicos vestros, (inquit,) et maledicentibus bene- 
dicite, et orate pro persecutoribus vestris—which is a quotation of 1, 2, 5. 
*. I, 2, 5, omitting 3, 4. 
Tertullian. Diligere inimicos, et orare pro eis qui vos persequuntur. 
-*. I, 5, omitting 2, 3, 4. 
Tertullian. Inimicos diligi, maledicentes benedici. .*. 1,2, omitting 3, 4, 5. 
Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite iis qui oderunt vos: orate 
pro calumniantibus et persequentibus vos. -. I, 3, 4, 5, omitting 2. 
Ambrose. Diligite inimicos vestros, orate pro calumniantibus et perse- 
quentibus vos. -. I, 4, 5, omitting 2, 3. 
Augustine. Diligite inimicos vestros benefacite his qui vos oderunt : et orate 
pro eis qui vos persequuntur. -. I, 3, 5, omitting 2, 4. 
‘ Benedicite qui vos persequuntur, et orate pro calumniantibus vos ac perse- 
quentibus vos.’ Hilary, 297. . 
Cyril Al. twice (i. 270: ii. 807) quotes the place thus,— 
ed moeiTE Tovs ExOpods bpady, 
Kal mpocevxecbe imip Taw émnpea(évTar byas. 
Chrys. (ili. 355) says 
autos ydp elev, eixecbe brép Tay tx Opay [ipay 
and repeats the quotation at ili. 340 and xii. 453. 
So Tertull. (Apol. c. 31), pro inimicis deum orare, et Jersecutoribus nostris 
bone precari. srt a 
If the lost Greek of Irenaeus (i. 521) were recovered, we should probably find 
ayanare Tods €xOpovs dpa, 
kal mpocedxecbe ixtp TaY picoUvTow bpas: 
and of Polycarp (ad Philipp. c. 12), 
mpocetxecbe imtp Tay KoxdvTov kal pucovvrav dyas. 
* Dialogus Adamantii is not adducible within my limits, because ‘it is 
in all probability the production of a later age.’ My number was eight. 


sufficient stress, as I now find, upon the parallel passage 
in St. Luke vi. 27,28. After fresh examination, I withdraw 
entirely Clemens Alex., Paed. i. 8,—Philo of Carpasus, 
I. 7,—Ambrose, De Abrahamo ii. 30, Ps. cxviii. 12. 51, 
and the two referred to Athanasius. Also I do not quote 
Origen, Cels. viii. 41,—Eusebius in Ps. iii.—Apost. Const. 
vii. 4,—Greg. Nyss., In S. Stephanum, because they may 
be regarded as doubtful, although for reasons which I pro- 
ceed to give they appear to witness in favour of our 
contention. It is necessary to add some remarks before 
dealing with the rest of the passages. 

1. It must be borne in mind, that this is a question 
both negative and positive :—negative on the side of 
our opponents, with all the difficulties involved in estab- 
lishing a negative conclusion as to the non-existence in 
St. Matthew’s Gospel of clauses 2, 3, and 5,—and positive 
for us, in the establishment of those clauses as part of 
the genuine text in the passage which we are considering. 
If we can so establish the clauses, or indeed any one of 
them, the case against us fails: but unless we can establish 
all, we have not proved everything that we seek to demon- 
strate. Our first object is to make the adverse position 
untenable: when we have done that, we fortify our own. 
Therefore both the Dean and myself have drawn attention 
to the fact that our authorities are summoned as witnesses 
to the early existence in each case of ‘ some of the clauses,’ 
if they do not depose to all of them. We are quite aware 
of the reply: but we have with us the advantage of 
positive as against negative evidence. This advantage 
especially rules in such an instance as the present, because 
alien circumstances govern the quotation, and regulate 
particularly the length of it. Such quotation is always 
liable to shortening, whether by leaving out intermediate 
clauses, or by sudden curtailment in the midst of the 
passage. Therefore, actual citation of separate clauses, 


being undesigned and fortuitous, is much more valuable 
than omission arising from what cause soever. 

2. The reviewer says that ‘all four clauses are read by 
both texts,’ i.e. in St. Matthew and St. Luke, and appears 
to have been unaware as regards the present purpose of 
the existence of the fifth clause, or half-clause, in St. 
Matthew. Yet the words—imép... 
are a very label, telling incontestibly the origin of many 
of the quotations. Sentences so distinguished with St. 
Matthew’s label cannot have come from St. Luke’s Gospel. 
The reviewer has often gone wrong here. The tmép— 
instead of the wepl after NBLZ in St. Luke—should be to 
our opponents a sign betraying the origin, though when it 
stands by itself—as in Eusebius, In Ps. iii—I do not press 
the passage. 

3. Nor again does the reviewer seem to have noticed the 
effects of the context in shewing to which source a quota- 
tion is to be referred. It is a common custom for Fathers 
to quote v. 45 in St. Matthew, which is hardly conceivable 
if they had St. Luke vi. 27, 28 before them, or even if they 
were quoting from memory. Other points in the context 
of greater or less importance are often found in the sentence 
or sentences preceding or following the words quoted, and 
are decisive of the reference. ; 

The references as corrected are given in the note’. It 

TOV SiwKdvTwv tas 

1 Observe that 5=imép... Tv SiwxdvTwv. 

Didache (§ 1), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4) 5. 

Polycarp (xii), 3 (2), 5- 

Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 15, 3 (2), 2 (3), 
4 (4), 5? brép trav éxOpav (=di0- 
xévtwv ?), but the passage more like 
St. Luke, the context more like St. 
Matt., ver. 45. 

Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christian. 11), 
1, 2 (3), 5, Ver. 45. 

Tertullian (De Patient. vi), 1, 2 (3), 
5, pt. ver. 45. Add Apol.c. 31. 1, 5. 

Theophilus Ant. (Ad Autolycum iii. 
14), 1, 4 (4), brép and ver. 46. 

Clemens Alex. (Strom. iv. 14), 1, 2 
(3), 4 (4), pt. ver. 45; (Strom. vii. 
14), favours St. Matt. 

Origen (De Orat. i), 1, 4 (4), dmép and 
in the middle of two quotations 
from St. Matthew; (Cels. viii. 45), 
1, 4 (4), dwép and all ver. 45. 

Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xiii. 7), 2 (3), 
4 (4), 5, all ver. 45; (Comment. in 




will be seen by any one who compares the verifications 
with the reviewer’s list, how his failure to observe the 
points just explained has led him astray. The effect 
upon the list given in The Traditional Text will be 
that before the era of St. Chrysostom twenty-five testi- 

.. monies are given in favour of the Traditional Text of 

St. Matt. v. 44, and adding Tertullian from the Dean nine 
against it. And the totals on page 102, lines 2 and 3 will 
be 522 and 171 respectively. | 

§ 7. 

Especially have we need to be on our guard against 
conniving at the ejection of short clauses consisting of 
from twelve to fourteen letters,—which proves to have 
been the exact length of a line in the earliest copies. 
When such omissions leave the sense manifestly imperfect, 
no evil consequence can result. Critics then either take no 
notice of the circumstance, or simply remark in passing 
that the omission has been the result of accident. In 
this way, [ot aatépes airév, though it is omitted by 
Cod. B in St. Luke vi. 26, is retained by all the Editors: 
and the strange reading of Cod. N in St. John vi. 55, 
omitting two lines, was corrected on the manuscript in 

Is. 66), 1, 3 (2), 4 (4), 5, also ver. 
45; (In Ps. cviii), 4, 5. 

Apost. Const. (i. 2), 1, 3 (2), 4 (4), 
5, umép and ver. 45. 

Greg. Naz. (Orat. iv. 124), 2 (3), 4 
(4), 5, bmepedxecOa. 

Greg. Nyss. (In Bapt. Christi), 3 (2), 
4 (4), 5, bmép, ver. 45. 

Lucifer (Pro S, Athan. ii) omits 4 (4), 
but quotes ver. 44... end of chap- 

Pacianus (Epist. ii), 2 (3), 5. 

Hilary (Tract. in Ps. cxviii. 9. 9), 2 
(3), 4 (4), 53 (ibid. 10, 16), 1, 4 
(4), 5. (The reviewer omits ‘ac 
persequentibus vos’ in both cases.) 

Ambrose (In Ps. xxxviii. 2), 1, 3, 4,53 
(In Ps. xxxviii. 10), 1, 4 (4), 5. 

Aphraates (Dem. ii), 1, 2 (3), 4 (4), 
5, Otol. 

Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 

(p. 89), 2 (3), 3 (2), 4 (4), ver. 45. 
Number = 25. 


the seventh century, and has met with no assent in modern 

But when, notwithstanding the omission of two or three 
words, the sense of the context remains unimpaired,—the 
clause being of independent signification,—then great 
danger arises lest an attempt should be made through the 
officiousness of modern Criticism to defraud the Church of 
a part of her inheritance. Thus [kai of ctv airé (St. Luke 
Viii. 45) is omitted by Westcott and Hort, and is placed in 
the margin by the Revisers and included in brackets by 
Tregelles as if the words were of doubtful authority, solely 
because some scribe omitted a line and was followed by B, 
a few cursives, the Sahidic, Curetonian, Lewis, and Jerusalem 

When indeed the omission dates from an exceedingly 
remote period; took place, I mean, in the third, or more 
likely still in the second century; then the fate of such 
omitted words may be predicted with certainty. Their 
doom is sealed. Every copy made from that defective 
original of necessity reproduced the defects of its proto- 
type: and if (as often happens) some of those copies have 
descended to our times, they become quoted henceforward 
as if they were independent witnesses'. Nor is this all. 
Let the taint have been communicated to certain copies 
of the Old Latin, and we find ourselves confronted with 
formidable because very venerable foes. And according 
to the recently approved method of editing the New 
Testament, the clause is allowed no quarter. It is de- 

' See Traditional Text, p. 55. 


clared without hesitation to be a spurious accretion to 
the Text. Take, as an instance of this, the following 
passage in St. Luke xii. 39. ‘If’ (says our LORD) ‘the 
master of the house had known in what hour 


his house to be broken through.’ Here, the clause within 
brackets, which has fallen out for an obvious reason, does 
not appear in Codd. N and D. But the omission did not 
begin with N. Two copies of the Old Latin are also 
without the words éypynyépnoey xai,—which are wanting 
besides in Cureton’s Syriac. Tischendorf accordingly 
omits them. And yet, who sees not that such an amount 
of evidence as this is wholly insufficient to warrant the 
ejection of the clause as spurious? What is the ‘ Science’ 
worth which cannot preserve to the body a healthy limb 
like this? 

[ The instances of omission which have now been examined 
at some length must by no means be regarded as the only 
specimens of this class of corrupt passages’. Many more 
will occur to the minds of the readers of the present 
volume and of the earlier volume of this work. In fact, 
omissions are much more common than Additions, or 
Transpositions, or Substitutions: and this fact, that omis- 
sions, or what seem to be omissions, are apparently so 
common,—to say nothing of the very strong evidence where- 
with they are attested—when taken in conjunction with the 
natural tendency of copyists to omit words and passages, 
cannot but confirm the general soundness of the position. 

1 For one of the two most important omissions in the New Testament, viz. 
the Pericope de Adultera, see Appendix I. See also Appendix II. 


How indeed can it possibly be more true to the infirmities 
of copyists, to the verdict of evidence on the several 
passages, and to the origin of the New Testament in the 
infancy of the Church and amidst associations which were 
not literary, to suppose that a terse production was first 
produced and afterwards was amplified in a later age with 
a view to ‘lucidity and completeness! rather than that 
words and clauses and sentences were omitted upon 
definitely understood principles in a small class of docu- 
ments by careless or ignorant or prejudiced scribes? The 
reply to this question must now be left for candid and 
thoughtful students to determine]. 

? Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 134. 



§ 1. 

ONE of the most prolific sources of Corrupt Readings, 
is TRANSPOSITION, or the arbitrary inversion of the order 
of the sacred words,—generally in the subordinate clauses 
of a sentence. The extent to which ‘this prevails in 
Codexes of the type of BNCD passes belief. It is not 
merely the occasional writing of ratra mavra for mdvta 
tatta,—or 6 dads otros for otros 6 Aads, to which allusion 
is now made: for if that were all, the phenomenon would 
admit of loyal explanation and excuse. But what I speak 
of is a systematic putting to wrong of the inspired words 
throughout the entire Codex; an operation which was ~ 
evidently regarded in certain quarters as a lawful exercise 
of critical ingenuity,—perhaps was looked upon as an 
elegant expedient to be adopted for improving the style 
of the original without materially interfering with the 

Let me before going further lay before the reader a few 
specimens of Transposition. 

Take for example St. Mark i. 5,—xal €Banrigovto mdvtes, 
—is unreasonably turned into advres kal éSamri orto; 
whereby the meaning of the Evangelical record becomes 


changed, for mdvres is now made to agree with “IepovoAv- 
pirat, and the Evangelist is represented as making the 
very strong assertion that a// the people of Jerusalem 
came to St. John and were baptized. This is the private 
property of BDLA. 

And sometimes I find short clauses added which I prefer 
to ascribe to the misplaced critical assiduity of ancient 
Critics. _ Confessedly spurious, these accretions to the 
genuine text often bear traces of pious intelligence, and 
occasionally of considerable ability. I do not suppose 
that they ‘crept in’ from the margin: but that they 
were inserted by men who entirely failed to realize the 
wrongness of what they did,—the mischievous conse- 
quences which might possibly ensue from their well-meant 
endeavours to improve the work of the HOLY GHOST. 

[Take again St. Mark ii. 3, in which the order in zpés 
avréy tapadvtixdy d€povtes,—is changed by NBL into 
d€povtes Tpos avtoy tmapadutixov. A few words are needed 
to explain to those who have not carefully examined 
the passage the effect of this apparently slight alteration. 
Our Lord was in a house at Capernaum with a thick 
crowd of people around Him: there was no room even 
at the door. Whilst He was there teaching, a company 
of people come to Him (&pxovra: mpds airév), four of the 
party carrying a paralytic on a bed. When they arrive 
at the house, a few of the company, enough to represent 
the whole, force their way in and reach Him: but on 
looking back they see that the rest are unable to bring 
the paralytic near to Him (xpocéyycat aire?) Upon 
which they all go out and uncover the roof, take up the 
sick man on his bed, and the rest of the familiar story 
unfolds itself. Some officious scribe wished to remove 
all antiquity arising from the separation of zapadurixdv 

* mpooéyyioat is transitive here, like éyyi{w in Gen. xlviii. 10, 13: 2 Kings 
iv. 6: Isaiah xlvi. 13. 


from alpéuevov which agrees with it, and transposed 
gépovtes to the verb it is attached to, thus clumsily 
excluding the exquisite hint, clear enough to those who 
can read between the lines, that in the ineffectual attempt 
to bring in the paralytic only some of the company 
reached our Lord’s Presence. Of course the scribe in 
question found followers in NBL. ] 

It will be seen therefore that some cases of transposition 
are of a kind which is without excuse and inadmissible. 
Such transposition consists in drawing back a word which 
occurs further on, but is thus introduced into a new 
context, and gives a new sense. It seems to be assumed 
that since the words are all there, so long as they be 
preserved, their exact collocation is of no moment. Trans- 
positions of that kind, to speak plainly, are important only 
as affording conclusive proof that such copies as BND 
preserve a text which has undergone a sort of critical 
treatment which is so obviously indefensible that the 
Codexes themselves, however interesting as monuments 
of a primitive age,—however valuable commercially and 
to be prized by learned and unlearned alike for their 
unique importance,—are yet to be prized chiefly as 
beacon-lights preserved by a watchful Providence to warn 
every voyaging bark against making shipwreck on a shore 
already strewn with wrecks 1. 

Transposition may sometimes be as conveniently illus- 
trated in English as in Greek. St. Luke relates (Acts ii. 
45, 46) that the first believers sold their goods ‘ and parted 
them to all men, as every man had need. And they, 
continuing daily, &c. For this, Cod. D reads, ‘and parted 
them daily to all men as every man had need. And they 
continued in the temple.’ 

1 The following are the numbers of Transpositions supplied by B, 8, and D 
in the Gospels:—B, 2,098: &, 2,299: D, 3,471. See Revision Revised, 
pp- 12, 13. 


§ 2. 

It is difficult to divine for what possible reason most 
of these transpositions were made. On countless occasions 
they do not in the least affect the sense. Often, they are 
incapable of being idiomatically represented, in English. 
Generally speaking, they are of no manner of import- 
ance, except as tokens of the licence which was claimed 
by disciples, as I suspect, of the Alexandrian school 
[or exercised unintentionally by careless or ignorant 
Western copyists]. But there arise occasions when we 
cannot afford to be so trifled with. An important change 
in the meaning of a sentence is sometimes effected by 
transposing its clauses; and on one occasion, as I venture 
to think, the prophetic intention of the Speaker is obscured 
in consequence. I allude to St. Luke xiii. 9, where under 
the figure of a barren fig-tree, our LORD hints at what 
is to befall the Jewish people, because in the fourth year 
of His Ministry it remained unfruitful. ‘Lo, these three 
years,’ (saith He to the dresser of His Vineyard), ‘come 
I seeking fruit on this fig-tree, and find none; cut it down; 
why cumbereth it the ground?’ ‘Spare it for this year 
also,’ (is the rejoinder), ‘and if it bear fruit,—well: but if 
not, next year thou shalt cut it down.’ But on the 
strength of NBLTY, some recent Critics would have us 
read,—‘ And if it bear fruit next year,—well: but if not, 
thou shalt cut it down’:—which clearly would add a year 
to the season of the probation of the Jewish race. The 
limit assigned in the genuine text is the fourth year: in 
the corrupt text of NBLTY, two bad Cursives, and the two 
chief Egyptian versions, this period becomes extended to 
the fifth. 

To reason about such transpositions of words, a weari- 
some proceeding at best, soon degenerates into the veriest 
trifling. Sometimes, the order of the words is really 

ee ee a we —s—. = if ae a ee ee ee eee, . 


immaterial to the sense. Even when a different shade 
of meaning is the result of a different collocation, that 
will seem the better order to one man which seems not 
to be so to another. The best order of course is that 
which most accurately exhibits the Author’s precise shade 
of meaning: but of this the Author is probably the only 
competent judge. On our side, an appeal to actual 
evidence is obviously the only resource: since in no 
other way can we reasonably expect to ascertain what 
was the order of the words in the original document. 
And surely such an appeal can be attended with only 
one result: viz. the unconditional rejection of the peculiar 
and often varying order advocated by the very few 
Codexes,—a cordial acceptance of the order exhibited by 
every document in the world besides. 

I will content myself with inviting attention to one or 
two samples of my meaning. It has been made a question 
whether St. Luke (xxiv. 7) wrote,—Aéywv,"Ort det Tov vidv 
Tod avOpézov tmapadoOjva, as all the MSS. in the world 
but four, all the Versions, and all the available Fathers’ 1 
evidence from A.D. 150 downwards attest: or whether 
he wrote,—A€ywv tov vidv tod avOpdzov dtu det mapadoOjvat, 
as NBCL,—and those four documents only—would have 
us believe? [The point which first strikes a scholar is that 
there is in this reading a familiar classicism which is alien 
to the style of the Gospels, and which may be a symptom 
of an attempt on the part of some early critic who was 
seeking to bring them into agreement with ancient Greek 
models.] But surely also it is even obvious that the corre- 
spondence of those four Codexes in such a particular as 
this must needs be the result of their having derived the 
reading from one and the same original. On the contrary, 

1 Marcion (Epiph. i. 317): Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266): Epiphanius (i. 348) : 
Cyril (Mai, ii. 438): John Thess. (Gall. xiii, 188). 
Il. M 


the agreement of all the rest in a trifling matter of 
detail like the present can be accounted for in only one 
way, viz., by presuming that they also have all been 
derived through various lines of descent from a single 
document: but that document the autograph of the 
Evangelist. [For the great number and variety of them 
necessitates their having been derived through various lines 
of descent. Indeed, they must have the notes of number, 
variety, as well as continuity, and weight also. | 

§ 3. 

On countless occasions doubtless, it is very difficult— 
perhaps impossible—to determine, apart from external 
evidence, which collocation of two or more words is the 
true one, whether e. g. éyet Conv for instance or (wry éxec?, 
—nyép0n dOews or edOéws jy€épOn*,A—xwdovs, TuvpdrAods—or 
TupAovs, XwAovs *,—shall be preferred. The burden of proof 
rests evidently with innovators on Traditional use. 

Obvious at the same time is it to foresee that if a man 
sits down before the Gospel with the deliberate intention 
of improving the style of the Evangelists by transposing 
their words on an average of seven (B), eight (&), or 
twelve (D) times in every page, he is safe to convict 
himself of folly in repeated instances, long before he has 
reached the end of his task. Thus, when the scribe of 
N, in place of efovclay ewxev atte xal xpiow oveiv*, 
presents us with xal kpiow @dwxev aire eovotay moveiv, we 
hesitate not to say that he has written nonsense®. And 
when BD instead of elot ties tév dde éEotnxdrwv exhibit 
clot tTwes Ode TOV éEoTHKOTwY, We Cannot but conclude that 

1 St. John v. 26, in N. 2 St. Mark ii. 12, in D. 

3 St. Luke xiv. 13, in NB. * St. John v. 27. 

> ‘Nec aliter’ (says Tischendorf) ‘ Tertull.’ (Prax. 21),—‘ et judicium dedit 
ahi facere in potestate” But this (begging the learned critic’s pardon) is quite 
a different thing. 


the credit of those two MSS. must be so far lowered in the 
eyes of every one who with true appreciation of the niceties 
of Greek scholarship observes what has been done. 

[This characteristic of the old uncials is now commended 
to the attention of students, who will find in the folios 
of those documents plenty of instances for examination. 
Most of the cases of Transposition are petty enough, whilst 
some, as the specimens already presented to the reader 
indicate, constitute blots not favourable to the general 
reputation of the copies on which they are found. Indeed, 
they are so frequent that they have grown to be a very 
habit, and must have propagated themselves. For it is 
in this secondary character rather than in any first inten- 
tion, so to speak, that Transpositions, together with 
Omissions and Substitutions and Additions, have become 
to some extent independent causes of corruption. Origin- 
ally produced by other forces, they have acquired a power 
of extension in themselves. 

It is hoped that the passages already quoted may be 
found sufficient to exhibit the character of the large class 
of instances in which the pure Text of the original 
Autographs has been corrupted by Transposition. That 
it has been so corrupted, is proved by the evidence 
which is generally overpowering in each case. There 
has clearly been much intentional perversion: careless- 
ness also and ignorance of Greek combined with inveterate 
inaccuracy, characteristics especially of Western corruption 
as may be seen in Codex D and the Old Latin versions, 
must have had their due share in the evil work. The 
result has been found in constant slurs upon the sacred 
pages, lessening the beauty and often perverting the sense, 
—a source of sorrow to the keen scholar and reverent 
Christian, and reiterated indignity done in wantonness or 
heedlessness to the pure and easy flow of the Holy Books. | 


CHAPTER XI (continued). 


§ 4. 

{ ALL the Corruption in the Sacred Text may be classed 
under four heads, viz. Omission, Transposition, Substitution, 
and Addition. We are entirely aware that, in the arrange- 
ment adopted in this Volume for purposes of convenience, 
Scientific Method has been neglected. The inevitable 
result must be that passages are capable of being classed 
under more heads than one. But Logical exactness is 
of less practical value than a complete and suitable 
treatment of the corrupted passages that actually occur 
in the four Gospels. 

It seems therefore needless to supply with a scrupuious- 
ness that might bore our readers a disquisition upon 
Substitution which has not forced itself into a place 
amongst Dean Burgon’s papers, although it is found in 
a fragmentary plan of this part of the treatise. Substituted 
forms or words or phrases, such as OC (8s) for OC (eds)? 
nmope for emote. (St. Mark vi. 20), or od« ofdare doximacew 
for doxmacere (St. Luke xii. 56), have their own special 
causes of substitution, and are naturally and best con- 

sidered under the cause which in each case gave them 

? See the very learned, ingenious, and satisfactory disquisition in The Re- 
vision Revised, pp. 424-501. 


Yet the class of Substitutions is a large one, if Modifica- 
tions, as they well may be, are added to it’. It will be 
readily concluded that some substitutions are serious, some 
of less importance, and many trivial. Of the more important 
class, the reading of duaprijparos for kpioews (St. Mark iii. 29) 
which the Revisers have adopted in compliance with NBLA 
and three Cursives, isa specimen. It is true that D reads 
ayaptias supported by the first corrector of C, and three 
of the Ferrar group (13, 69, 346): and that the change 
adopted is supported by the Old Latin versions except 
f, the Vulgate, Bohairic, Armenian, Gothic, Lewis, and 
Saxon. But the opposition which favours kpfcews is made 
up of A, C under the first reading and the second correction, 
> and eleven other Uncials, the great bulk of the Cursives, 
f, Peshitto, and Harkleian, and is superior in strength. 
The internal evidence is also in favour of the Traditional 
reading, both as regards the usage of évoxos, and the natural 
meaning given by xploews. ‘Apaprnuwartos has clearly crept 
in from ver. 28. Other instances of Substitution may be 
found in the well-known St. Luke xxiii. 45 (rod 7Alov 
éxAumévtos), St. Matt. xi. 27 (BovAnrat dmoxaddwat), St. Matt. 
Xxvii. 34 (otvoy for fos), St. Mark i. 2 (Hoaig for rots tpog1- 
tas), St. John i. 18 (6 Movoyévyns cds being a substitution 
made by heretics for 6 Movoyévns Tiés), St. Mark vii. 31 (81a 
Sisdvos for cal Ysdvos). These instances may perhaps 
suffice: many more may suggest themselves to intelligent 
readers. Though most are trivial, their cumulative force 
is extremely formidable. Many of these changes arose 
from various causes which are described in many other 
places in this book.] 

1 The numbers are :— 

B, substitutions, 935 ; modifications, 1,132; total, 2,067. 
X, " 1,114; 9 hy) Arie Py cs 

D, ” 2,121; ” 1,7723 3 3893+ 
Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13. 

in TE, a ee 
- —— 

CHAPTER XI (continued). 



§ 5. 

[THE smallest of the four Classes, which upon a pure 
survey of the outward form divide among themselves 
the surface of the entire field of Corruption, is that of 
Additions?, And the reason of their smallness of number 
is discoverable at once. Whilst it is but too easy for’ 
scribes or those who have a love of criticism to omit 
words and passages under all circumstances, or even to 
vary the order, or to use another word or form instead 
of the right one, to insert anything into the sacred Text 
which does not proclaim too glaringly its own unfitness— 
in a word, to invent happily—is plainly a matter of much 
greater difficulty. Therefore to increase the Class of 
Insertions or Additions or Interpolations, so that it should 
exceed the Class of Omissions, is to go counter to the 
natural action of human forces. There is no difficulty in 
leaving out large numbers of the Sacred Words: but there 
is much difficulty in placing in the midst of them human 
words, possessed of such a character and clothed in such 

an uniform, as not to betray to keen observation their 
earthly origin. 

? B has 536 words added in the Gospels: N, 839: D, 2,213. Revision 
Revised, pp. 12, 13. The interpolations of D are notorious. 


A few examples will set this truth in clearer light. It 
is remarkable that efforts at interpolation occur most 
copiously amongst the books of those who are least fitted 
to make them. We naturally look amongst the repre- 
sentatives of the Western school where Greek was less 
understood than in the East where Greek acumen was 
imperfectly represented by Latin activity, and where 
translation into Latin and retranslation into Greek was 
a prolific cause of corruption. Take then the following 
passage from the Codex D (St. Luke vi. 4) :— 

‘On the same day He beheld a certain man working 
on the sabbath, and said to him, “Man, blessed art thou 
if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou knowest 
not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law.”’ 

And another from the Curetonian Syriac (St. Matt. xx. 
28), which occurs under a worse form in D. 

‘But seek ye from little to become greater, and not 
from greater to become less. When ye are invited to 
supper in a house, sit not down in the best place, lest 
some one come who is more honourable than thou, and 
the lord of the supper say to thee, ‘Go down below,” 
and thou be ashamed in the presence of them that have 
sat down. But if thou sit down in the lower place, and 
one who is inferior to thee come in, the lord also of the 
supper will say to thee, “Come near, and come up, and 
sit down,” and thou shalt have greater honour in the 
presence of them that have sat down.’ 

Who does not see that there is in these two passages no 
real ‘ring of genuineness’ ? 

Take next some instances of lesser insertions. | 

§ 6. 
Conspicuous beyond all things in the Centurion of 
Capernaum (St. Matt. viii.13) was his faith. It occasioned 
wonder even in the Son of Man. Do we not, in the 


significant statement, that when they who had been sent 
returned to the house, ‘they found the servant whole 
that had been sick’, recognize by implication the assur- 
ance that the Centurion, because he needed no such 
confirmation of his belief, went 7o¢ with them ; but enjoyed 
the twofold blessedness of remaining with CHRIST, and 
of believing without seeing? I think so. Be this however 
as it may, NCEMUX besides about fifty cursives, append 
to St. Matt. viii. 13 the clearly apocryphal statement, 
‘And the Centurion returning to his house in that same 
hour found the servant whole.’ It does not improve the 
matter to find that Eusebius *, besides the Harkleian and 
the Ethiopic versions, recognize the same appendix. We 
are thankful, that no one yet has been found to advocate 
the adoption of this patent accretion to the inspired text. 
Its origin is not far to seek. I presume it was inserted 
in order to give a kind of finish to the story °. 

1 St. Luke vii. 10. ? Theoph. p. 212. : 

3 An opposite fate, strange to say, has attended a short clause in the same 
narrative, which however is even worse authenticated. Instead of obdé év 
7®@ “IopaiA TocavtTny tictw etpov (St. Matt. vill, 10), we are invited hence- 
forth to read wap’ otdevl rocadtny miotw év T@ "IopanjA evpoy ;—a tame and 
tasteless gloss, witnessed to by only B, and five cursives,—but having no other 
effect, if it should chance to be inserted, than to mar and obscure the Divine 

For when our SAVIOUR declares ‘ Not even in Israel have I found so great 
faith,’ He is clearly contrasting this proficiency of an earnest Gentile against 
whatever of a like nature He had experienced in His dealing with the Jewish 
people; and declaring the result. He is contrasting Jacob’s descendants, the 
heirs of so many lofty privileges, with this Gentile soldier: their spiritual 
attainments with his; and assigning the palm to him. Substitute ‘ With no 
one in Israel have I found so great faith, and the contrast disappears. Nothing 
else is predicated but a greater measure of faith in one man than in any other, 
The author of this feeble attempt to improve upon St. Matthew’s Gospel is 
found to have also tried his hand on the parallel place in St. Luke, but with 
even inferior success: for there his misdirected efforts survive only in certain 
copies of the Old Latin. Ambrose notices his officiousness, remarking that it 
yields an intelligible sense; but that, ‘juxta Graecos,’ the place is to be read 
differently *. 

1 i, 1376. 


[Another and that a most remarkable Addition may 
be found in St. Matt. xxiv. 36, into which the words 
ovdé 6 Yids, ‘neither the Son’ have been transferred from 
St. Mark xiii. 32 in compliance with a wholly insufficient 
body of authorities’. Lachmann was the leader in this 
proceeding, and he has been followed by Tischendorf, 
Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers. The latter body 
add in their margin, ‘ Many authorities, some ancient, omit 
neither the Son. How inadequate to the facts of the case 
this description is, will be seen when the authorities are 
enumerated. But first of those who have been regarded 
by the majority of the Revisers as the disposers of their 
decision, according to the information supplied by Tischen- 

They are (a) of Uncials & (in the first reading and as 
re-corrected in the seventh century) BD; (4) five Cursives 
(for a present of 346 may be freely made to Tischendorf) ; 
(c) ten Old Latin copies also the Aureus (Words.), some 
of the Vulgate (four according to Wordsworth), the Pales- 
tinian, Ethiopic, Armenian; (d) Origen (Lat. iii. 874), 
Hilary (733°), Cyril Alex. (Mai Nova Pp. Bibliotheca, 
481), Ambrose (i. 1478). But Irenaeus (Lat. i. 386), Cyril 
(Zach. 800), Chrysostom (ad locum) seem to quote from 
St. Mark. So too, as Tischendorf admits, Amphilo- 

On the other hand we have, (a) the chief corrector of 
X (c?) BY with thirteen other Uncials and the Greek MSS. 

It is notorious that a few copies of the Old Latin? and the Egyptian versions 
exhibit the same depravation. Cyril habitually employed an Evangelium which 
was disfigured in the same way*%, But are we out of such materials as these to 
set about reconstructing the text of Scripture? 

1 This disquisition is made up in part from the Dean’s materials. 

1 Augustine once (iv. 322), though he quotes the place nearly twenty times 
in the usual way. 
? iii. 833, also Opp. v. 544, ed. Pusey. 


of Adamantius and Pierius mentioned by Jerome!; (0) all 
the Cursives, as far as is known (except the aforenamed) ; 
(c) the Vulgate, with the Peshitto, Harkleian, Lewis, 
Bohairic, and the Sahidic ; (dz) Jerome (in the place just now 
quoted), St. Basil who contrasts the text of St. Matthew 
with that of St. Mark, Didymus, who is also express in 
declaring that the three words in dispute are not found 
in St. Matthew (Trin. 195), St. John Damascene (ii. 346), 
Apollonius Philosophus (Galland. ix. 247), Euthymius 
Zigabenus (in loc.), Paulinus (iii. 12), St. Ambrose (ii. 656), 
and Anastasius Sinaita (Migne, Ixxxix. 941). 

Theophylact (i. 133), Hesychius Presb. (Migne, Ixiii. 142) 
Eusebius (Galland. ix. 580), Facundus Herm. (Galland. xi. 
782), Athanasius (ii. 660), quote the words as from the 
Gospel without reference, and may therefore refer to 
St. Mark. Phoebadius (Galland. v. 251), though quoted 
against the Addition by Tischendorf, is doubtful. 

On which side the balance of evidence inclines, our 
readers will judge. But at least they cannot surely justify 
the assertion made by the majority of the Revisers, that 
the Addition is opposed only by ‘many authorities, some 
ancient,’ or at any rate that this is a fair and adequate 
description of the evidence opposed to their decision. 

An instance occurs in St. Mark iii. 16 which illustrates 
the carelessness and tastelessness of the handful of authorities 
to which it pleases many critics to attribute ruling authority. 
In the fourteenth verse, it had been already stated that our 
Lord ‘ordained twelve, kal éxoinoe dé5exa; but because 
NBA and C (which was corrected in the ninth century with 
a MS. of the Ethiopic) reiterate these words two verses 

* «In quibusdam Latinis codicibus additum est, zegue Filius : quum in Graecis, 
et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur adscriptum. 
Sed quia in nonnullis legitur, disserendum videtur.’ Hier. vii. 199 a. ‘Gaudet 
Arius et Eunomius, quasi ignorantia magistri gloria discipulorum sit, et 

dicunt :—“ Non potest aequalis esse qui novit et qui ignorat.”’ Ibid. 6. 
In vi. 919, we may quote from St. Mark, 


further on, Tischendorf with Westcott and Hort assume 
that it is necessary to repeat what has been so recently 
told. Meanwhile eighteen other uncials (including A®> 
and the third hand of C); nearly all the Cursives; the 
Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Lewis, Harkleian, Gothic, 
Armenian, and the other MSS. of the Ethiopic omit them. 
It is plainly unnecessary to strengthen such an opposition 
by researches in the pages of the Fathers. 

Explanation has been already given, how the introductions 
to Lections, and other Liturgical formulae, have been 
added by insertion to the Text in various places. Thus 
6 “Ijcots has often been inserted, and in some places 
remains wrongly (in the opinion of Dean Burgon) in the 
pages of the Received Text. The three most important 
additions to the Received Text occur, as Dean Burgon 
thought, in St. Matt. vi. 18, where év ro davepo has crept 
in from v. 6 against the testimony of a large majority both 
of Uncial and of Cursive MSS,: in St. Matt. xxv. 13, where 
the clause év 7) 6 vids Tod avOpdzov Epxerat seemed to him to 
be condemned by a superior weight of authority: and in 
St. Matt. xxvii. 35, where the quotation (iva mAnpwO7j .. 
€Badov x\fjpov) must be taken for similar reasons to have 
been originally a gloss. | 



§ 1. 

‘GLOSSES, properly so called, though they enjoy a con- 
spicuous place in every enumeration like the present, are 
probably by no means so numerous as is commonly 
supposed. For certainly every unauthorized accretion to 
the text of Scripture is not a ‘gloss’: but only those 
explanatory words or clauses which have surreptitiously 
insinuated themselves into the text, and of which no more 
reasonable account can be rendered than that they were 
probably in the first instance proposed by some ancient 
Critic in the way of useful comment, or necessary expla- 
nation, or lawful expansion, or reasonable limitation of 
the actual utterance of the SPIRIT. Thus I do not call the 
clause vexpovs éyelpere in St. Matt. x. 8 ‘a gloss.’ It is 
a gratuitous and unwarrantable interpolation,—nothing else 
but a clumsy encumbrance of the text 1. 

[Glosses, or scholia, or comments, or interpretations, are 
of various kinds, but are generally confined to Additions 
or Substitutions, since of course we do not omit in order 
to explain, and transposition of words already placed in 
lucid order, such as the sacred Text may be reasonably 
supposed to have observed, would confuse rather than 
illustrate the meaning. A clause, added in Hebrew 
fashion’, which may perhaps appear to modern taste to 

* See The Traditional Text, pp. 51-52. 
? St. Mark vi. 33. See The Traditional Text, p. 80. 


be hardly wanted, must not therefore be taken to be 
a gloss. | 

Sometimes a ‘various reading’ is nothing else but 
a gratuitous gloss;—the unauthorized substitution of a 
common for an uncommon word. This phenomenon is of 
frequent occurrence, but only in Codexes of a remarkable 
type like BNCD. A few instances follow :— 

1. The disciples on a certain occasion (St. Matt. xiii. 36), 
requested our LorD to ‘explain’ to them (PPACON jyiv, 
‘they said ’) the parable of the tares. So every known copy, 
except two: so, all the Fathers who quote the place,— 
viz. Origen, five times 1,—Basil?,—-J. Damascene*. And 
so all the Versions*. But because B-N, instead of ppdcor, 
exhibit AlACAQHCON (‘make clear to us’),—which is also 
once the reading of Origen®, who was but too well 
acquainted with Codexes of the same depraved character 
as the archetype of B and N—Lachmann, Tregelles (not 
Tischendorf), Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers of 
1881, assume that dvacddynoov (a palpable gloss) stood in 
the inspired autograph of the Evangelist. They therefore 
thrust out dpdcov and thrust in dvacdd@yoov. I am wholly 
unable to discern any connexion between the premisses 
of these critics and their conclusions ®, 

1 iii. 3e: 4 band c: 442 a: 481 b. Note, that the Jjors in which the first 
three of these quotations occur seems to have been obtained by De la Rue from 
a Catena on St. Luke in the Mazarine Library (see his Monitum, iii. 1). A large 
portion of it (viz. from p. 3, line 25, to p. 4, line 2g) is ascribed to ‘ I. Geometra 
in Proverbia’ in the Catena in Luc. of Corderius, p. 217. 

? ii. 345. ® ii, 242. 

* The Latin is edzssere or dissere, enarra or narra, both here and in xv. 15. 

Says 25a as 

6 In St. Matthew xiii. 36 the Peshitto Syriac has «& wad ‘declare to us’ 
and in St. Matthew xv. 15 the very same words, there being zo various 
reading in either of these two passages. 

The inference is, that the translators had the same Greek word in each place, 
especially considering that in the only other place where, besides St. Matt. xiii. 
36, v. 1., &acapeiy occurs, viz. St. Matt. xviii. 31, they render d:ecdpyoav by 
arjo/ "= they made known. 

Since ppa¢ev only occurs in St. Matt. xiii. 36 and xv. 15, we cannot generalize 


2. Take another instance. Tvyy7,—the obscure expres- 
sion (A leaves it out) which St. Mark employs in vii. 3 
to denote the strenuous frequency of the Pharisees’ cere- 
monial washings,—is exchanged by Cod. &, but by no other 
known copy of the Gospels, for auxvd, which last word is 
of course nothing else but a sorry gloss. Yet Tischendorf 
degrades avyu7 and promotes ztuxvd to honour,—happily 
standing alone in his infatuation. Strange, that the most 
industrious of modern accumulators of evidence should not 
have been aware that by such extravagances he marred his 
pretension to critical discernment! Origen and Epiphanius 
~—the only Fathers who quote the place—both read avypj7. 
It ought to be universally admitted that it is a mere 
waste of time that we should argue out a point like this 1. 

§ 2. 

A gloss little suspected, which—not without a pang of 
regret—I proceed to submit to hostile scrutiny, is the 
expression ‘ daily’ (xa@ jyépav) in St. Luke ix. 23. Found 
in the Peshitto and in Cureton’s Syriac,—but only in some 
Copies of the Harkleian version?: found in most Copies 

about the Peshitto rendering of this verb. Conversely, aS is used as the 
rendering of other Greek words besides paar, e. g. 

of émaAvev, St. Mark iv. 343 

of dcepunvedey, St. Luke xxiv. 27; 

of d:avotyer, St. Luke xxiv. 32 and Acts xvii. 3. 

On the whole I have xo doubt (though it is not susceptible of Zvoof) that 
the Peshitto had, in both the places quoted above, ¢pagor. 

N.B. The Cureton and Lewis have, in St. Matt. xiii. 36, 2a 
in ” XV.15, 95 
in ,, xviii. 31, for the keodpnocay, QeQus, 

The Cureton (Lewis defective) has a word often used in Syriac for ‘ shew,’ 
‘declare.’ [Rev. G. H. Gwilliam.] 

1 In St. Mark vii. 3, the translators of the Peshitto render whatever Greek 
they had before them by Kallas, which means ‘ eagerly,’ ‘ sedulously’; cf. 
use of the word for omoviaiws, St. Luke vii. 4; émpedd@s, St. Luke xv. 8. 

The Root means ‘to cease’; thence ‘to have leisure for a thing’: it has 
nothing to do with ‘ Fist.’ [Rev. G. H. Gwilliam. ] 

? Harkl. Marg. 2 Joc., and Adler, p. 115. 

= Peshitto. 


of the Vulgate,—but largely disallowed by copies of the 
Old Latin’: found also in Ephraem Syrus*,—but clearly 
not recognized by Origen*: found again in NAB and six 
other uncials,—but not found in CDE and ten others: the 
expression referred to cannot, at all events, plead for its 
own retention in the text higher antiquity than can be 
pleaded for its exclusion. Cyril, (if in such a matter the 
Syriac translation of his Commentary on St. Luke may 
be trusted.) is clearly an authority for reading xa” juepav 
in St. Luke ix. 23*; but then he elsewhere twice quotes 
St. Luke ix. 23 in Greek without it®. Timotheus of 
Antioch, of the fifth century, omits the phrase®. Jerome 
again, although he suffered ‘ guotédie’ to stand in the Vul- 
gate, yet, when for his own purposes he quotes the place in 
St. Luke 7,—ignores the word. All this is calculated to 
inspire grave distrust. On the other hand, xaé’ jpyépay 
enjoys the support of the two Egyptian Versions,—of the 
Gothic,—of the Armenian,—of the Ethiopic. And this, in 

1 Viz, a bce ff?1q, 

2 "Opeinee Poy, &v TO Adyw TOD Kuplov Kataxodrovdovca, TOv oTavpdv avrot 
KaQ” fpepav aipew, ds yéypamra* Todr got, Eroipws Exovoa tropeve Ka 
Xpiorov macav Odjtfv Kal metpacpdv, «.7.A. (ii. 326 €). In the same spirit, 
further on, he exhorts to constancy and patience,—rdv émt tod Kupiov Oavarov 
év émOupia mavrore mpd dpOadrpav exovTes, kal (Kaas eipnra id Tod Kupiov) 
kad’ jpepav Tov oraupdv aipovres, b ort Oavaros (ii. 332). It is fair to assume 
that Ephraem’s reference is to St. Luke ix. 23, seeing that he wrote not in Greek 
but in Syriac, and that in the Peshitto the clause is found only in that place. 

3 “Axove Aoved déyovTos,—i. 281 f. Also, int. iii. 543. 

* Pp. 221 (text), 222, 227. 

5 ii. 751 e, 774 e (in Es.)—the proof that these quotations are from St. Luke; 
that Cyril exhibits dpyncdo@w instead of dmapy. (see Tischendorf’s note on 
St. Luke ix. 23). The quotation in i. 40 (Glaph.) may be from St. Matt. 
xvi. 24. 

6 Migne, vol. Ixxxvi. pp. 256 and 257. 

7 After quoting St. Mark viii. 34,—‘aut juxta Lucam, dicebat ad cunctos: St 
quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum ; et tollat crucem suam, et sequetur 
me. —i, 852 ¢. 

This is found in his solution of XZ Quaestiones, ‘ad Algasiam,’—free 
translations probably from the Greek of some earlier Father. Six lines lower 
down (after quoting words found nowhere in the Gospels), Jerome proceeds :— 
‘ Quotidie credens in Christum fol/it crucem suam, et negat seipsum.’ 


the present state of our knowledge, must be allowed to 
be a weighty piece of evidence in its favour. | 

But the case assumes an entirely different aspect the 
instant it is discovered that out of the cursive copies 
only eight are found to contain xa@ jpépav in St. Luke 
ix. 231. How is it to be explained that nine manuscripts 
out of every ten in existence should have forgotten how to 
transmit such a remarkable message, had it ever been 
really so committed to writing by the Evangelist? The 
omission (says Tischendorf) is explained by the parallel 
places*. Utterly incredible, I reply; as no one ought to 
have known better than Tischendorf himself. We now 
scrutinize the problem more closely; and discover that 
the very /ocus of the phrase is a matter of uncertainty. 
Cyril once makes it part of St. Matt. x. 38°. Chrysostom 
twice connects it with St. Matt. xvi. 244. Jerome, 
evidently regarding the phrase as a curiosity, informs 
us that ‘juxta antiqua exemplaria’ it was met with in 
St. Luke xiv. 27°. All this is in a high degree unsatis- 
factory. We suspect that we ourselves enjoy some slight 

‘ This spurious clause adorned the lost archetype of Evann. 13, 69, 124, 346 
(Ferrar’s four) ; and survives in certain other Evangelia which enjoy a similar 
repute, — as I, 33, 72 (with a marginal note of distrust), 131. 

2 They are St. Matt. xvi. 24: St. Mark viii. 34. 

$i. 597 c (Adorat.)—elsewhere (viz. i. 21d: 528 c: 580 b: iv. 1058 a: 
v’. 83 c) Cyril quotes the place correctly. Note, that the quotation found in 
Mai, iii. 126, which Pusey edits (v. 418), in Hebr., is nothing else but an 
excerpt from the treatise de Adorat. i. 528 c. 

* In his Commentary on St. Matt. xvi. 24 :—Acd mavrds tod Biov rodre def 
moveiv. Anver@s yap, pyat, wepipepe Tov Odvaroy TodToV, Kal Kad’ Huépay EToL pos 
€so mpos opayny (vii. 557 b). Again, commenting on ch. xix. 21,—Aéf mpo- 
nyoupéves akorovbeiy TS XpiroTg’ Tovréoti, wavra TA wap avTov KeAevdpeva Torey, 
mpos oparyds eivat Erotpov, kat Oavarov KaOnpepivév (p. 629 e€) :—words which 
Chrysostom immediately follows up by quoting ch. xvi. 24 (630 a). 

° i. 949 b,—‘ Quotidie (inquit Apostolus) morior propter vestram salutem. 
Et Dominus, juxta antiqua exemplaria, Vis¢ guts tulerit crucem suam quotidie, 
et sequutus fuerit me, non potest meus esse discipulus ’—Commenting on St. Matt. 
x. 38 (vol. vii. p. 65 b), Jerome remarks,—‘ in alio Evangelio scribitur,—@wz 
non accipit crucem suam quotidie’: but the corresponding place to St. Matt. 

x. 38, in the sectional system of Eusebius (Greek and Syriac), is St. Luke 
xiv. 27. 


familiarity with the ‘antiqua exemplaria’ referred to by 
the Critic; and we freely avow that we have learned to 
reckon them among the least reputable of our acquaintance. 
Are they not represented by those Evangelia, of which 
several copies are extant, that profess to have been 
‘transcribed from, and collated with, ancient copies at 
Jerusalem’? These uniformly exhibit «a6? jpépay in 
St. Luke ix. 231. But then, if the phrase be a gloss,— 
it is obvious to inquire,—how is its existence in so many 
quarters to be accounted for ? 

Its origin is not far to seek. Chrysostom, in a certain 
place, after quoting our LORD’s saying about taking up 
the cross and following Him, remarks that the words 
‘do not mean that we are actually to bear the wood 
upon our shoulders, but to keep the prospect of death 
steadily before us, and like St. Paul to “die daily” ?.’ The 
same Father, in the two other places already quoted from 
his writings, is observed similarly to connect the SAVIOUR’S 
mention of ‘ bearing the Cross’ with the A postle’s announce- 
ment—‘I die daily.’ Add, that Ephraem Syrus*, and 
Jerome quoted already,—persistently connect the same two 
places together; the last named Father even citing them in 
immediate succession ;—and the inference is unavoidable. 
The phrase in St. Luke ix. 23 must needs be a very ancient 
as well as very interesting expository gloss, imported into 
the Gospel from 1 Cor. xv. 31,—as Mill* and Matthaei® 
long since suggested. 

Sincerely regretting the necessity of parting with an 
expression with which one has been so long familiar, we 
cannot suffer the sentimental plea to weigh with us when 
the Truth of the Gospel is at stake. Certain it is that 
but for Erasmus, we should never have known the regret : 
for it was he that introduced xa@ jyépay into the Received 

? Viz. Evan. 473 (2°). ? ii. 66 c, d. 

* See above, p. 175, note 2. * Proleg.p. cxlvi. * N. T. (1803), i. 368. 

II. N 


Text. The MS. from which he printed is without the 
expression: which is also not found in the Complutensian. 
It is certainly a spurious accretion to the inspired Text. 

[The attention of the reader is particularly invited to 
this last paragraph. The learned Dean has been sneered 
at for a supposed sentimental and effeminate attachment 
to the Textus Receptus. He was always ready to reject 
words and phrases, which have not adequate support ; but 
he denied the validity of the evidence brought against 
many texts by the school of Westcott and Hort, and 
therefore he refused to follow them in their surrender of 
the passages. | 

§ 3. 

Indeed, a great many ‘various readings, so called, are 
nothing else but very ancient interpretations,—fabricated 
readings therefore,—of which the value may be estimated 
by the fact that almost every trace of them has long since 
disappeared. Such is the substitution of ¢evye: for aveys- 
pnoev in St. John vi. 15 ;—which, by the way, Tischendorf 
thrusts into his text on the sole authority of 8, some Latin 
copies including the Vulgate, and Cureton’s Syriac ?: though 
Tregelles ignores its very existence. That our LORD’S 
‘withdrawal’ to the mountain on that occasion was of the 
nature of ‘flight, or ‘retreat’ is obvious. Hence Chry- 
sostom and Cyril remark that He ‘fled to the mountain.’ 
And yet both Fathers (like Origen and Epiphanius before 
them) are found to have read dvexdpyoev. 

Almost as reasonably in the beginning of the same verse 
might Tischendorf (with &) have substituted dvadecxvivar 
for iva roujowow adrdv, on the plea that Cyril? says, (yreiv 
avtov dvadeiga cal Baotdga. We may on no account suffer 
ourselves to be imposed upon by such shallow pretences 
for tampering with the text of Scripture: or the deposit 

* Lewis here agrees with Peshitto. * iv. 745: 


will never be safe. A patent gloss,—rather an interpreta- 
tion,—acquires no claim to be regarded as the genuine 
utterance of the HOLY SPIRIT by being merely found in 
two or three ancient documents. It is the little handful 
of documents which loses in reputation,—not the reading 
which gains in authority on such occasions. 

In this way we are sometimes presented with what in 
effect are new incidents. These are not unfrequently 
discovered to be introduced in defiance of the reason of 
the case; as where (St. John xiii. 24) Simon Peter is 
represented (in the Vulgate) as actually saying to St. John, 
‘Who is it concerning whom He speaks?’ Other copies 
of the Latin exhibit, ‘ Ask Him who it is, &c.: while SBC 
(for on such occasions we are treated to any amount of 
apocryphal matter) would persuade us that St. Peter only 
required that the information should be furnished him by 
St. John :—‘ Say who it is of whom He speaks.’ Some- 
times a very little licence is sufficient to convert the oratio 
obliqua into the recta. Thus, by the change of a single 
letter (in NBX) Mary Magdalene is made to say to the 
disciples ‘7 have seen the LorD’ (St. John xx. 18). But 
then, as might have been anticipated, the new does not 
altogether agree with the old. Accordingly D and others 
paraphrase the remainder of the sentence thus,—‘ and she 
signified to them what He had said unto her. How 
obvious is it to foresee that on such occasions the spirit 
of officiousness will never know when to stop! In the 
Vulgate and Sahidic versions the sentence proceeds, ‘ and 
He told these things unto me.’ 

Take another example. The Hebraism pera odAmcyyos 
gwris peyddns (St. Matt. xxiv. 31) presents an uncongenial 
ambiguity to Western readers, as our own incorrect A. V. 
sufficiently shews. Two methods of escape from the 
difficulty suggested themselves to the ancients :—(a) Since 
‘a trumpet of great sound’ means nothing else but ‘a loud 

N 2 


trumpet,’ and since this can be as well expressed by 
addmtyyos peydAns, the scribes at a very remote period 
are found to have omitted the word ¢wvjs. The Peshitto 
and Lewis (interpreting rather than translating) so deal 
with the text. Accordingly, @wvjs is not found in NLA 
and five cursives. Eusebius1, Cyril Jerus.?, Chrysostom *, 
Theodoret *, and even Cyprian ® are also without the word. 
(2) A less violent expedient was to interpolate xaf before 
gwvjs. This is accordingly the reading of the best Italic 
copies, of the Vulgate, and of D. So Hilary*® and Jerome’. 
Severianus *, Asterius °, ps.-Caesarius 1°, Damascene ! and 
at least eleven cursive copies, so read the place.—There 
can be no doubt at all that the commonly received text 
is right. It is found in thirteen uncials with B at their 
head : in Cosmas’, Hesychius?*, Theophylact?*. But the 
decisive consideration is that the great body of the cursives 
have faithfully retained the uncongenial Hebraism, and 
accordingly imply the transmission of it all down the 
ages: a phenomenon which will not escape the unpre- 
judiced reader. Neither will he overlook the fact that 
the three ‘old uncials’ (for A and C are not available 
here) advocate as many different readings: the two wrong 
readings being respectively countenanced by our two 
most ancient authorities, viz. the Peshitto version and 
the Italic. It only remains to point out that Tischendorf 
blinded by his partiality for & contends here for the 
mutilated text, and Westcott and Hort are disposed to 
do the same. 

§ 4, 

Recent Editors are agreed that we are henceforth to read 
in St. John xviii. 14 dzo0aveiv instead of dtoAécOar :-—‘ Now 

1 In Ps. 501. 2 229 and 236. 5 vii. 736: xi. 478. 

* ii. 1209. 5 269. * 577. 7 i. 881. 

® Ap. Chrys. vi. 460. ® Ap. Greg. Nyss. ii. 258. 10 Galland. vi. 53. 
1 ii, 346. 9 ii, 261, 324. 3 Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 429. at as ade 


Caiaphas was he who counselled the Jews that it was 
expedient that one man should die’ (instead of ‘perish’) 
‘for the people.’ There is certainly a considerable amount 
of ancient testimony in favour of this reading: for besides 
SBC, it is found in the Old Latin copies, the Egyptian, and 
Peshitto versions, besides the Lewis MS., the Chronicon, 
Cyril, Nonnus, Chrysostom. Yet may it be regarded as 
certain that St. John wrote dzoAécOa in this place. The 
proper proof of the statement is the consentient voice of all 
the copies,—except about nineteen of loose character :— 
we know their vagaries but too well, and decline to let 
them impose upon us. In real fact, nothing else is dto@aveiy 
but a critical assimilation of St. John xviii. 14 to xi. 50,— 
somewhat as ‘die’ in our A. V. has been retained by 
King James’ translators, though they certainly had dzo- 
AécOa before them. 

Many of these glosses are rank, patent, palpable. Such 
is the substitution (St. Mark vi. 11) of ds dv rézos ph 8¢Enrar 
tyas by NBLA for éc001 dv pH d€£wvrar tyas,—which latter 
is the reading of the Old Latin and Peshitto, as well as 
of the whole body of uncials and cursives alike. Some 
Critic evidently considered that the words which follow, 
‘when you go out ¢hence; imply that place, not persons, 
should have gone before. Accordingly, he substituted 
‘whatsoever place’ for ‘whosoever’’: another has _ be- 
queathed to us in four uncial MSS. a lasting record of 
his rashness and incompetency. Since however he left 
behind the words pyde dxotdcwow tyaév, which immediately 
follow, who sees not that the fabricator has betrayed him- 
self? Iam astonished that so patent a fraud should have 
imposed upon Tischendorf, and Tregelles, and Lachmann, 
and Alford, and Westcott and Hort. But in fact it does 
not stand alone. From the same.copies NBLA (with two 

1 The attentive student of the Gospels will recognize with interest how grace- 
fully the third Evangelist St. Luke (ix. 5) has overcome this difficulty. 


others, CD) we find the woe denounced in the same verse 
on the unbelieving city erased (4unv A€yw tyiv, avextdrepov 
Zorat Lodduors 7 Topdppos ev tyuepa Kploews, TH Tore 
éxeivn). Quite idle is it to pretend (with Tischendorf) 
that these words are an importation from the parallel 
place in St. Matthew. A memorable note of diversity 
has been set on the two places, which in a// the copies 
is religiously maintained, viz. Lodduors 7 Topdppos, in 
St. Mark: yy Yoddpwv cat Toudppwr, in St. Matt. It is 
simply incredible that this could have been done if the 
received text in this place had been of spurious origin. 

§ 5. 

The word dzéxe. in St. Mark xiv. 41 has proved 
a stumbling-block. The most obvious explanation is 
probably the truest. After a brief pause’, during which 
the SAVIOUR has been content to survey in silence His 
sleeping disciples ;—or perhaps, after telling them that 
they will have time and opportunity enough for sleep 
and rest when He shall have been taken from them ;— 
He announces the arrival of ‘the hour, by exclaiming, 
"Anéxer,—‘ It is enough;’ or, ‘It is sufficient ;’ i.e. The 
season for repose ts over. 

But the ‘ Revisers’ of the second century did not perceive 
that azéxe. is here used impersonally?. They understood 

+ Augustine, with his accustomed acuteness, points out that St. Mark’s 
narrative shews that after the words of ‘Sleep on now and take your rest,’ 
our LoRD must have been silent for a brief space in order to allow His 
disciples a slight prolongation of the refreshment which his words had already 
permitted them to enjoy. Presently, He is heard to say,— It is enough ’—(that 
is, ‘Ye have now slept and rested enough’); and adds, ‘The hour is come. 
Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.’ ‘Sed quia com- 
memorata non est ipsa interpositio silentii Domini, propterea coartat intel- 
lectum, ut in illis verbis alia pronuntiatio requiratur.—iii”. 106 a, b. The 
passage in question runs thus :—Ka@evdere 7d Aorwdv Kal dvanavecbe. dwéxet" 
HAVev 4 wpa’ iSov, «.7.r. 

* Those who saw this, explain the word amiss. Note the Scholion (Anon. 


the word to mean ‘is fully come’; and supplied the 
supposed nominative, viz. rd rédos?. Other critics who 
rightly understood azréxe: to signify ‘sufficit,’ still subjoined 
‘finis.’ The Old Latin and the Syriac versions must have 
been executed from Greek copies which exhibited,— 
anéxet 70 tédos. This is abundantly proved by the 
renderings adest finis (f),—consummatus est finis (a); from 
which the change to dméxes rd téAos KAI % dpa (the 
reading of D) was obvious: sufficit finis et hora (d q); 
adest enim consummatio; et (ff* ventt) hora (c); or, (as the 
Peshitto more fully gives it), appropinguavit finis, et venit 
hora*, Jerome put this matter straight by simply writing 
suficit, But it is a suggestive circumstance, and an 
interesting proof how largely the reading dméyer Td TéAos 
must once have prevailed, that it is frequently met with 
in cursive copies of the Gospels to this hour*. Happily 
it is an ‘old reading’ which finds no favour at the present 
day. It need not therefore occupy us any longer. 

As another instance of ancient Glosses introduced to help 
out the sense, the reading of St. John ix. 22 is confessedly 
iva éav Tis abrov 6uoroyjon Xpiotév. So all the MSS. but one, 
and so the Old Latin. So indeed all the ancient versions 
except the Egyptian. Cod. D alone adds eiva:: but etvar 
must once have been a familiar gloss: for Jerome retains 
Vat.) in Possinus, p. 321:—dméyxet, rovréoti, temANpwra, TéAOS Exet TO Ka’ Ene. 
Last Twelve Verses, p. 226, note. 

1 I retract unreservedly what I offered on this subject in a former work (Last 
Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 225, 226). Iwas misled by one who seldom indeed 
misleads,—the learned editor of the Codex Bezae (27 loco). 

2 So Peshitto. Lewis, venit hora, appropinquat finis. WHarkleian, adest 
consummatio, venit hora. 

. S amexet. Vg. sufficit. + 70 Tedos, 13, 69, 124, 2P°, cS, 47, 54, 56, O61, 
184, 346, 348, 439. d, q, sufficit finis et hora. f{, adest finis, venit hora. 
c, ff?, adest enim consummatio, et (ff? venit) hora. a, consummatus est finis, 
advenit hora. It is certain that one formidable source of danger to the sacred 
text has been its occasional obscurity. This has resulted,—(1) sometimes in the 
omission of words: Aevrepompwrov. (2) Sometimes in substitution, as mvypj. 

(3) Sometimes in the insertion of unauthorized matter: thus, 7d 7éAos, as 


it in the Vulgate: and indeed Cyril, whenever he quotes 
the place!, exhibits rov Xpiordv eivaz. Not so however 
Chrysostom ? and Gregory of Nyssa *. 

§ 6. 

There is scarcely to be found, amid the incidents 
immediately preceding our SAVIOUR’S Passion, one more 
affecting or more exquisite than the anointing of His 
feet at Bethany by Mary the sister of Lazarus, which 
received its unexpected interpretation from the lips of 
CHRIST Himself. ‘Let her alone. Against the day 
of My embalming hath she kept it. (St. John xii. 7.) 
He assigns to her act a mysterious meaning of which 
the holy woman little dreamt. She had treasured up 
that precious unguent against the day,—(with the pre- 
sentiment of true Love, she knew that it could not be 
very far distant)—when His dead limbs would require 
embaiming. But lo, she beholds Him reclining at supper 
in her sisters house: and yielding to a Divine impulse she 
brings forth her reserved costly offering and bestows it 
on Him at once. Ah, she little knew,—she could not in 
fact have known,—that it was the only anointing those 
sacred feet were destined ever to enjoy! .... In the mean- 
time through a desire, as I suspect, to bring this incident 
into an impossible harmony with what is recorded in 
St. Mark xvi. 1, with which obviously it has no manner 
of connexion, a scribe is found at some exceedingly remote 
period to have improved our LORD’S expression into this :— 
‘Let her alone in order that against the day of My embalm- 
ing she may keep it.’ Such an exhibition of the Sacred 
Text is its own sufficient condemnation. What that critic 
exactly meant, I fail to discover: but I am sure he has 
spoilt what he did not understand: and though it is quite 

? iii. 105: iv. 913. So also iv. 614. 2 vi. 283. 5 i, 307. 


true that NBD with five other Uncial MSS. and Nonnus, 
besides the Latin and Bohairic, Jerusalem, Armenian, 
and Ethiopic versions, besides four errant cursives so 
exhibit the place, this instead of commending the reading 
to our favour, only proves damaging to the witnesses 
by which it is upheld. We learn that no reliance is to 
be placed even in such a combination of authorities. This 
is one of the places which the Fathers pass by almost 
in silence. Chrysostom? however, and evidently Cyril 
Alex.*, as well as Ammonius* convey though roughly 
a better sense by quoting the verse with ézolnce for 
retipnxev. Antiochus* is express. [A and eleven other 
uncials, and the cursives (with the petty exception already 
noted), together with the Peshitto, Harkleian (which only 
notes the other reading in the margin), Lewis, Sahidic, 
and Gothic versions, form a body of authority against the 
palpable emasculation of the passage, which for number, 
variety, weight, and internal evidence is greatly superior 
to the opposing body. Also, with reference to continuity 
and antiquity it preponderates plainly, if not so decisively ; 
and the context of D is full of blunders, besides that it 
omits the next verse, and B and ®& are also inaccurate 
hereabouts*®. So that the Traditional text enjoys in this 
passage the support of all the Notes of Truth.] 

In accordance with what has been said above, for "Ades 
aitny els Thy huepay tod evtadiacyod pov TeTHpynKey avTd 
(St. John xii. 7), the copies which it has recently become 
the fashion to adore, read ddes atriy iva... typion adro. 
This startling innovation,—which destroys the sense of our 

1 viii. 392. 2 iv. 696. 3 Cramer’s Cat. 27 Joc. * 1063. 

5 E.g. ver. 1. All the three officiously insert 6 “Inoods, in order to prevent 
people from imagining that Lazarus raised Lazarus from the dead; ver. 4, 
D gives the gloss, dd Kapuwrov for “Ioxapiwrns ; ver. 13, spells thus,—dooave ; 
besides constant inaccuracies, in which it is followed by none. N omits nineteen 
words in the first thirty-two verses of the chapter, besides adding eight and 
making other alterations. B is far from being accurate. 


SAVIOUR’S words, and furnishes a sorry substitute which 
no one is able to explain 1,—is accepted by recent Editors 
and some Critics: yet is it clearly nothing else but 
a stupid correction of the text,—introduced by some one 
who did not understand the intention of the Divine 
Speaker. Our SAVIOUR is here discovering to us an 
exquisite circumstance,—revealing what until now had 
been a profound and tender secret: viz. that Mary, con- 
vinced by many a sad token that the Day of His departure 
could not be very far distant, had some time before pro- 
vided herself with this costly ointment, and ‘kept it’ by 
her,—intending to reserve it against the dark day when 
it would be needed for the ‘embalming’ of the lifeless 
body of her Lorp. And now it wants only a week to 
Easter. She beholds Him (with Lazarus at His side) 
reclining in her sister's house at supper, amid circumstances 
of mystery which fill her soul with awful anticipation. She 
divines, with love’s true instinct, that this may prove her 
only opportunity. Accordingly, she ‘ azticipates to anoint’ 
(xpoeAaBe prupioa, St. Mark xiv. 8) His Body: and, yield- 
ing to an overwhelming impulse, bestows upon Him all 
her costly offering at once!... How does it happen that 
some professed critics have overlooked all this? Any one 
who has really studied the subject ought to know, from 
a mere survey of the evidence, on which side the truth 
in respect of the text of this passage must needs lie. 

Our LORD, in His great Eucharistic address to the 
eternal FATHER, thus speaks:—‘I have glorified Thee 
on the earth. I have perfected the work which Thou 
* «Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of My burying’ (Alford). 
But how cou/d she keep it after she had poured it all out ?—‘ Suffer her to have 
kept it against the day of My preparation unto burial’ (M°Clellan). But iva 

T™pnoy could hardly mean that: and the day of His évragragpés had not yet 


gavest Me to do’ (St. John xvii. 4). Two things are 
stated: first, that the result of His Ministry had been 
the exhibition upon earth of the FATHER’S ‘glory’: next, 
that the work which the FATHER had given the SON to 
do? was at last finished. And that this is what St. John 
actually wrote is certain: not only because it is found in 
all the copies, except twelve of suspicious character (headed 
by NABCL); but because it is vouched for by the Peshitto * 
and the Latin, the Gothic and the Armenian versions®: 
besides a whole chorus of Fathers; viz. Hippolytus®, 
Didymus’, Eusebius §, Athanasius ®, Basil !°, Chrysostom 4, 
Cyril 1", ps.-Polycarp }°, the interpolator of Ignatius, and 
the authors of the Apostolic Constitutions °: together with 
the following among the Latins:—Cyprian'®, Ambrose”, 
Hilary'’, Zeno, Cassian*°, Novatian”!, certain Arians”, 
Augustine ”, 

But the asyndeton (so characteristic of the fourth 
Gospel) proving uncongenial to certain of old time, D 
inserted kai. A more popular device was to substitute 
the participle (reAeudoas) for érehe(woa: whereby our LORD 
is made to say that He had glorified His FATHER’S Name 
‘by perfecting’ or ‘ completing ’—‘in that He had finished’ 

? Consider ii. 11 and xi. 40: St. Luke xiii. 17: Heb. i. 3. 

? Consider v. 36 and iv. 34. 

3 Consider St. John xix. 30. Cf. St. Luke xxii. 37. 

* Lewis, ‘and the work I have perfected’: Harkleian, ‘ because the work,’ 
&c., ‘ because’ being obelized. 

5 The Bohairic and Ethiopic are hostile. 

6 i. 245 (=Constt. App. viii. 1; af. Galland. iii. 199). SPE ALO: 

8 Mcell p, 157, 9 i, 534. W ii. 196, 238: iii. 39. 

My, 256: viii. 475 des. 

12 iii. 542: iv.954: v'. 599, 601,614: v?. 152.—In the following places Cyril 
shews himself acquainted with the other reading,—iv. 879: v'. 167, 366: 
vi. 124. 

18 Polyc. frg. v (ed. Jacobson). 1 Ps,-Ignat. 328. 

13 4%. Gall. iii. 215. maa Sey ee M ii, 545. 

18 Pp. 510, 816, 1008. But opere consummato, pp. 812, 815.—Jerome also 
once (iv. 563) has opere completo. 

19 4p. Gall. v. 135. 2% P. 367. 4 4%, Gall. iii. 308. 

® 4p. Aug. viii. 622. * iii?, 761: viii. 640. 


—the work which the FATHER had given Him to do; 
which damages the sense by limiting it, and indeed 
introduces a new idea. A more patent gloss it would 
be hard to find. Yet has it been adopted as the genuine 
text by all the Editors and all the Critics. So general 
is the delusion in favour of any reading supported by the 
combined evidence of NABCL, that the Revisers here 
translate—‘I glorified Thee on the earth, having accom- 
plished (rehedoas) the work which Thou hast given Me 
to do:’ without so much as vouchsafing a hint to the 
English reader that they have altered the text. 

When some came with the message ‘ Thy daughter is 
dead: why troublest thou the Master further?’ the 
Evangelist relates that JESUS ‘as soon as He heard 
(evO€ws axovoas) what was being spoken, said to the ruler 
of the synagogue, Fear not: only believe.’ (St. Mark 
v. 36.) For this, NBLA substitute ‘disregarding (aapa- 
xovcas) what was being spoken’: which is nothing else 
but a sorry gloss, disowned by every other copy, including 
ACD, and all the versions. Yet does zapaxovcas find 
favour with Tischendorf, Tregelles, and others. 

§ 8. 

In this way it happened that in the earliest age the 
construction of St. Luke i. 66 became misapprehended. 
Some Western scribe evidently imagined that the popular 
saying concerning John Baptist,—ri dpa 1d zaidiov totro 
éotat, extended further, and comprised the Evangelist’s 
record,—xal yelp Kupiov jv per adrod. To support this 
strange view, xaf was altered into xal yap, and éori was 
substituted for jv. It is thus that the place stands in 
the Verona copy of the Old Latin (b). In other quarters 
the verb was omitted altogether: and that is how D, 
Evan. 59 with the Vercelli (a) and two other copies of the 


Old Latin exhibit the place. Augustine! is found to have 
read indifferently—‘ manus enim Domini cum illo, and 
‘cum illo est’: but he insists that the combined clauses 
represent the popular utterance concerning the Baptist ”. 
Unhappily, there survives a notable trace of the same 
misapprehension in N-BCL which, alone of MSS., read 
kal yap . .. qv*. The consequence might have been 
anticipated. All recent Editors adopt this reading, which 
however is clearly inadmissible. The received text, wit- 
nessed to by the Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian 
versions, is obviously correct. Accordingly, A and all 
the uncials not already named, together with the whole 
body of the cursives, so read the place. With fatal in- 
felicity the Revisers exhibit ‘For indeed the hand of 
the LORD was with him.’ They clearly are to blame: 
for indeed the MS. evidence admits of no uncertainty. It 
is much to be regretted that not a single very ancient 
Greek Father (so far as I can discover) quotes the place. 

§ 9. 

It seems to have been anciently felt, in connexion with 
the first miraculous draught of fishes, that St. Luke’s 
statement (v. 7) that the ships were so full that ‘they 
were sinking’ (éore BvOi¢ecOar aird) requires some quali- 
fication. Accordingly C inserts 7j5n (were ‘just’ sinking) ; 
and D, zapa 7 (‘ within a little’): while the Peshitto the 
Lewis and the Vulgate, as well as many copies of the Old 
Latin, exhibit ‘ita ut pene’ These attempts to improve 
upon Scripture, and these paraphrases, indicate laudable 
zeal for the truthfulness of the Evangelist ; but they betray 
an utterly mistaken view of the critic’s office. The truth 
is, BvOi¢ecOar, as the Bohairic translators perceived and 

2 vy. 1166. 2 Tbid. 1165 g, 1166 a. 

* Though the Bohairic, Gothic, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions are disfigured 
in the same way, and the Lewis reads ‘is.’ 


as most of us are aware, means ‘ were beginning to sink.’ 
There is no need of further qualifying the expression 
by the insertion with Eusebius? of any additional word. 

I strongly suspect that the introduction of the name of 
‘Pyrrhus’ into Acts xx. 4 as the patronymic of ‘ Sopater 
of Beraea,’ is to be accounted for in this way. A very 
early gloss it certainly is, for it appears in the Old 
Latin: yet, the Peshitto knows nothing of it, and the 
Harkleian rejects it from the text, though not from the 
margin. Origen and the Bohairic recognize it, but not 
Chrysostom nor the Ethiopic. I suspect that some foolish 
critic of the primitive age invented [vpov (or [I¥vppov) out 
of Bepotatos (or Beppotatos) which follows. The Latin form of 
this was ‘ Pyrus2, ‘ Pyrrhus,’ or ‘ Pirrus*.” In the Sahidic 
version he is called the ‘son of Berus’ (vids Bepod),—which 
confirms me in my conjecture. But indeed, if it was with 
some Leraean that the gloss originated,—and what more 
likely ?—it becomes an interesting circumstance that the 
inhabitants of that part of Macedonia are known to have 
confused the p and 4 sounds*. ... This entire matter is 
unimportant in itself, but the letter of Scripture cannot 
be too carefully guarded: and let me invite the reader 
to consider,—If St. Luke actually wrote Zéararpos [vppov 
Bepo.atos, why at the present day should five copies out 
of six record nothing of that second word? 

1 Theoph. 216 note: as xwduvevew adra BuvOicOjvat. 
? Cod. Amiat. 3 g,—at Stockholm. 
* Stephanus De Urbibus in voc. Bépoa. 




§ 1. 

THE Corruptions of the Sacred Text which we have 
been hitherto considering, however diverse the causes 
from which they may have resulted, have yet all agreed 
in this: viz. that they have all been of a lawful nature. 
My meaning is, that apparently, at no stage of the 
business has there been mala fides in any quarter. We 
are prepared to make the utmost allowance for careless, 
even for licentious transcription; and we can invent 
excuses for the mistaken zeal, the officiousness if men 
prefer to call it so, which has occasionally not scrupled 
to adopt conjectural emendations of the Text. To be 
brief, so long as an honest reason is discoverable for 
a corrupt reading, we gladly adopt the plea. It has 
been shewn with sufficient clearness, I trust, in the course 
of the foregoing chapters, that the number of distinct 
causes to which various readings may reasonably be 
attributed is even extraordinary. 

But there remains after all an alarmingly large assort- 
ment of textual perturbations which absolutely refuse to 
fall under any of the heads of classification already 
enumerated. They are not to be accounted for on any 
ordinary principle. And this residuum of cases it is, 


which occasions our present embarrassment. They are 
in truth so exceedingly numerous; they are often so 
very considerable; they are, as a rule, so very licentious ; 
they transgress to such an extent all regulations; they 
usurp so persistently the office of truth and faithfulness, 
that we really know not what to think about them. 
Sometimes we are presented with gross interpolations,— 
apocryphal stories: more often with systematic lacera- 
tions of the text, or transformations as from an angel of 

We are constrained to inquire, How all this can possibly 
have come about? Have there even been persons who 
made it their business of set purpose to corrupt the [sacred 
deposit of Holy Scripture entrusted to the Church for the 
perpetual illumination of all ages till the Lord should 
come ? | 

At this stage of the inquiry, we are reminded that it 
is even notorious that in the earliest age of all, the New 
Testament Scriptures were subjected to such influences. 
In the age which immediately succeeded the Apostolic 
there were heretical teachers not a few, who finding their 
tenets refuted by the plain Word of GoD bent themselves 
against the written Word with all their power. From 
seeking to evacuate its teaching, it was but a single step 
to seeking to falsify its testimony. Profane literature has 
never been exposed to such hostility. I make the remark 
in order also to remind the reader of one more point of 
[dissimilarity between the two classes of writings. The 
inestimable value of the New Testament entailed greater 
dangers, as well as secured superior safeguards. Strange, 
that a later age should try to discard the latter]. 

It is found therefore that Satan could not even wait 
for the grave to close over St. John. ‘Many’ there were 
already who taught that CHRIST had not come in the 
flesh. Gnosticism was in the world already. St. Paul 


denounces it by name’, and significantly condemns the 
wild fancies of its professors, their dangerous speculations 
as well as their absurd figments. Thus he predicts and 
condemns? their pestilential teaching in respect of meats 
and drinks and concerning matrimony. In his Epistle to 
Timothy * he relates that Hymeneus and Philetus taught 
that the Resurrection was past already. What wonder 
if a flood of impious teaching * broke loose on the Church 
when the last of the Apostles had been gathered in, and 
another generation of men had arisen, and the age of 
Miracles was found to be departing if it had not already 
departed °, and the loftiest boast which any could make 
was that they had known those who had [seen and heard 
the Apostles of the Lord]. 

The ‘ grievous wolves’ whose assaults St. Paul predicted 
as imminent, and against which he warned the heads of the 
Ephesian Church ®, did not long ‘ spare the flock.’ Already, 
while St. John was yet alive, had the Nicolaitans developed 
their teaching at Ephesus’ and in the neighbouring Church 
of Pergamos*. Our risen LORD in glory announced to His 
servant John that in the latter city Satan had established 
his dwelling-place®. Nay, while those awful words were 
being spoken to the Seer of Patmos, the men were already 
born who first dared to lay their impious hands on the 
Gospel of CHRIST. 

No sooner do we find ourselves out of Apostolic lines 
and among monuments of the primitive age than we are 
made aware that the sacred text must have been exposed 
at that very early period to disturbing influences which, on 
no ordinary principles, can be explained. Justin Martyr, 
Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria,—among the 

1 Yevdwvtpou ywwoews 1 Tim. vi. 20. 2 1 Tim. iv. I-3. 3 ii. 17. 

4 yeveadoyia: 1 Tim. i. 4: Titus iii. 9. Dangerous speculation (& wi é&paxev 
éuBarevow Col. ii. 18). ‘Old wives’ fables’ (1 Tim. i. 4: iv. 7. Tit. i, 14). 

5 See the fragment of Irenaeus in Euseb. H. E. iv. 7. 
® Acts xx. 29. 7 Rey. ii. 6. ® Rey. ii. 15. 9 Rev. ii. 13. 

Il. O 


Fathers: some Old Latin MSS.', the Bohairic and Sahidic, 
and coming later on, the Curetonian and Lewis,—among the 
Versions: of the copies Codd. B and &: and above all, 
coming later down still, Cod. D:—these venerable monu- 
ments of a primitive age occasionally present us with 
deformities which it is worse than useless to extenuate,— 
quite impossible to overlook. Unauthorized appendixes, 
—tasteless and stupid amplifications,—plain perversions of 
the meaning of the Evangelists,—wholly gratuitous assimi- 
lations of one Gospel to another,—the unprovoked omission 
of passages of profound interest and not unfrequently of 
high doctrinal import:—How are such phenomena as 
these to be accounted for? Again, in one quarter, we 
light upon a systematic mutilation of the text so extra- 
ordinary that it is as if some one had amused himself by 
running his pen through every clause which was not 
absolutely necessary to the intelligibleness of what re- 
mained. In another quarter we encounter the thrusting 
in of fabulous stories and apocryphal sayings which 
disfigure as well as encumber the text.—How will any 
one explain all this? 

Let me however at the risk of repeating what has been 
already said dispose at once of an uneasy suspicion which 
is pretty sure to suggest itself to.a person of intelligence 
after reading what goes before. If the most primitive 
witnesses to our hand are indeed discovered to bear false 
witness to the text of Scripture,—whither are we to betake 
ourselves for the Truth? And what security can we hope 
ever to enjoy that any given exhibition of the text of 
Scripture is the true one? Are we then to be told that 
in this subject-matter the maxim ‘zd verius quod prius’ 
does not hold? that the stream instead of getting purer 
as we approach the fountain head, on the contrary grows 
more and more corrupt ? 

? Chiefly the Low Latin amongst them, Tradit. Text. chap. vii. p. 137. 


Nothing of the sort, I answer. The direct reverse is the 
case. Our appeal is always made to antiquity ; and it is 
nothing else but a truism to assert that the oldest reading 
is also the best. A very few words will make this matter 
clear; because a very few words will suffice to explain 
a circumstance already adverted to which it is necessary to 
keep always before the eyes of the reader. 

The characteristic note, the one distinguishing feature, 
of all the monstrous and palpable perversions of the text 
of Scripture just now under consideration is this :—that 
they are never vouched for by the oldest documents 
generally, but only by a few of them,—two, three, or more 
of the oldest documents being observed as a rule to yield 
conflicting testimony, (which in this subject-matter is in 
fact contradictory). In this way the oldest witnesses nearly 
always refute one another, and indeed dispose of one 
another’s evidence almost as often as that evidence is 
untrustworthy. And now I may resume and proceed. 

I say then that it is an adequate, as well as a singularly 
satisfactory explanation of the greater part of those gross 
depravations of Scripture which admit of no legitimate 
excuse, to attribute them, however remotely, to those 
licentious free-handlers of the text who are declared by 
their contemporaries to have falsified, mutilated, inter- 
polated, and in whatever other way to have corrupted 
the Gospel; whose blasphemous productions of necessity 
must once have obtained a very wide circulation: and 
indeed will never want some to recommend and uphold 
them. What with those who like Basilides and his 
followers invented a Gospel of their own:—what with 
those who with the Ebionites and the Valentinians inter- 
polated and otherwise perverted one of the four Gospels 
until it suited their own purposes:—what with those 
who like Marcion shamefully maimed and mutilated the 
inspired text :—there must have been a large mass of cor- 



ruption festering in the Church throughout the immediate 
post-Apostolic age. But even this is not all. There 
were those who like Tatian constructed Diatessarons, or 
attempts to weave the fourfold narrative into one,—‘ Lives 
of CHRIST,’ so to speak ;—and productions of this class 
were multiplied to an extraordinary extent, and as we 
certainly know, not only found their way into the 
remotest corners of the Church, but. established them- 
selves there. And will any one affect surprise if occasion- 
ally a curious scholar of those days was imposed upon 
by the confident assurance that by no means were those 
many sources of light to be indiscriminately rejected, but 
that there must be some truth in what they advanced? 
In a singularly uncritical age, the seductive simplicity 
of one reading,—the interesting fullness of another,—the 
plausibility of a third,—was quite sure to recommend its 
acceptance amongst those many eclectic recensions which 
were constructed by long since forgotten Critics, from 
which the most depraved and worthless of our existing 
texts and versions have been derived. Emphatically 
condemned by Ecclesiastical authority, and hopelessly 
outvoted by the universal voice of Christendom, buried 
under fifteen centuries, the corruptions I speak of survive 
at the present day chiefly in that little handful of copies 
which, calamitous to relate, the school of Lachmann and 
Tischendorf and Tregelles look upon as oracular: and in 
conformity with which many scholars are for refashion- 
ing the Evangelical text under the mistaken title of ‘Old 
Readings.’ And now to proceed with my argument. 

§ 2. 

Numerous as were the heresies of the first two or three 
centuries of the Christian era, they almost all agreed in 
this ;—that they involved a denial of the eternal Godhead 


of the Son of Man: denied that He is essentially very 
and eternal Gop. This fundamental heresy found itself 
hopelessly confuted by the whole tenor of the Gospel, 
which nevertheless it assailed with restless ingenuity: and 
many are the traces alike of its impotence and of its malice 
which have survived to our own times. It is a memorable 
circumstance that it is precisely those very texts which 
relate either to the eternal generation of the SON,—to 
His Incarnation,—or to the circumstances of His Nativity, 
—which have suffered most severely, and retain to this 
hour traces of having been in various ways tampered with. 
I do not say that Heretics were the only offenders here. 
I am inclined to suspect that the orthodox were as much 
to blame as the impugners of the Truth. But it was at 
least with a pious motive that the latter tampered with 
the Deposit. They did but imitate the example set them 
by the assailing party. It is indeed the calamitous con- 
sequence of extravagances in one direction that they are 
observed ever to beget excesses in the opposite quarter. 
Accordingly the piety of the primitive age did not think 
it wrong to fortify the Truth by the insertion, suppression, 
or substitution of a few words in any place from which 
danger was apprehended. In this way, I am persuaded, 
many an unwarrantable ‘reading’ is to be explained. I do 
not mean that ‘marginal glosses have frequently found 
their way into the text’:—that points to a wholly im- 
probable account of the matter. I mean, that expressions. 
which seemed to countenance heretical notions, or at least 
which had been made a bad use of by evil men, were 
deliberately falsified. But I must not further anticipate 
the substance of the next chapter. 

The men who first systematically depraved the text 
of Scripture, were as we now must know the heresiarchs 
Basilides (fl. 134), Valentinus (fl. 140), and Marcion (fl. 
150): three names which Origen is observed almost 


invariably to enumerate together. Basilides! and Valen- 
tinus? are even said to have written Gospels of their 
own. Such a statement is not to be severely pressed: 
but the general fact is established by the notices, and 
those are exceedingly abundant, which the writers against 
Heresies have cited and left on record. All that is 
intended by such statements is that these old heretics 
retained, altered, transposed, just so much as they pleased 
of the fourfold Gospel: and further, that they imported 
whatever additional matter they saw fit:—not that they 
rejected the inspired text entirely, and substituted some- 
thing of their own invention in its place®. And though, in 
the case of Valentinus, it has been contended, apparently 
with reason, that he probably did not individually go to 
the same length as Basilides,—who, as well in respect of 
St. Paul’s Epistles as of the four Gospels, was evidently 
a grievous offender *,—yet, since it is clear that his principal 
followers, who were also his contemporaries, put forth 
a composition which they were pleased to style the ‘ Gospel 
of Truth®, it is idle to dispute as to the limit of the 

1 ¢ Ausus fuit et Basilides scribere Evangelium, et suo illud nomine titulare.’— 
Orig. Opp. iii. 933 c: Iren. i. 23: Clem. Al. 409, 426, 506, 509, 540, 545: 

Tertull. c. 46: Epiph. 24: Theodor. i. 4. 

* «Evangelium habet etiam suum, praeter haec nostra’ (De Praescript., ad 

5 Origen (commenting on St. Luke x. 25-28) says,—vatra 52 eipyrat mpds 
Tois amd Ovadertivov, kal Baotdidov, kal Tods dd Mapkiwvos. exovor yap Kai 
avtol tds Agfes év TO Kad’ Eavrods edayyediv. Opp. iii. g81 A. 

* *Licet non sint digni fide, qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem 
loquor et Basilidem et omnes Haereticos qui vetus laniant Testamentum: tamen 
eos aliqua ex parte ferremus, si saltem in novo continerent manus suas; et non 
auderent Christi (ut ipsi iactitant) boni Dei Filii, vel Evangelistas violare, vel 
Apostolos. Nunc vero, quum et Evangelia eius dissipaverint; et Apostoloram 
epistolas, non Apostolorum Christi fecerunt esse, sed proprias; miror quaomodo 
sibi Christianorum nomen audeant vindicare. Ut enim de caeteris Epistolis 
taceam, (de quibus quidquid contrarium suo dogmati viderant, evaserunt, non- 
nullas integras repudiandas crediderunt); ad Timotheum videlicet utramque, 
ad Hebraeos, et ad Titum, quam nunc conamur exponere.’ Hieron. Praef. ad 

5 “Hi vero, qui sunt a Valentino, exsistentes extra omnem timorem, suas 
conscriptiones praeferentes, plura habere gloriantur, quam sint ipsa Evangelia. 


rashness and impiety of the individual author of the heresy. 
Let it be further stated, as no slight confirmation of the 
view already hazarded as to the probable contents of 
the (so-called) Gospels of Basilides and of Valentinus, that 
one particular Gospel is related to have been preferred 
before the rest and specially adopted by certain schools 
of ancient Heretics. Thus, a strangely mutilated and de- 
praved text of St. Matthew’s Gospel is related to have 
found especial favour with the Ebionites', with whom the 
Corinthians are associated by Epiphanius: though Irenaeus 
seems to say that it was St. Mark’s Gospel which was 
adopted by the heretical followers of Cerinthus. Marcion’s 
deliberate choice of St. Luke’s Gospel is sufficiently well 
known. The Valentinians appropriated to themselves 
St. John’. Heracleon, the most distinguished disciple of 
this school, is deliberately censured by Origen for having 
corrupted the text of the fourth Evangelist in many 
places*. A considerable portion of his Commentary on 
St. John has been preserved to us: and a very strange 
production it is found to have been. 

Siquidem in tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim conscriptum 
est, Veritatis Evangelium titulent.’ Iren. iii. xi. 9. 

1 See, by all means, Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. c. xiii; also c. iii. 

2 «Tanta est circa Evangelia haec firmitas, ut et ipsi haeretici testimonium 
reddant eis, et ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque eorum conetur suam confirmare 
doctrinam. Ebionaei etenim eo Evangelio quod est secundum MATTHAEUM, 
solo utentes, ex illo ipso convincuntur, non recte praesumentes de Domino. 
Marcion autem id quod est secundum Lucam circumcidens, ex his quae adhuc 
servantur penes eum, blasphemus in solum existentem Deum ostenditur. Qui 
autem Jesum separant a Christo, et impassibilem perseverasse Christum, passum 
vero Iesum dicunt, id quod secundum Marcum est praeferentes Evangelium; 
cum amore veritatis legentes illud, corrigi possunt. Hi autem qui a Valentino 
sunt, eo quod est secundum JOANNEM plenissime utentes,’ &c. Iren. iii. xi. 7. 

3 “Hpaxdéwy, 6 THs Obadrertivov cxodfs Soxipwtaros. Clem. Al. p. 595. Of 
Heracleon it is expressly related by Origen that he depraved the text of the 
Gospel. Origen says (iv. 66) that Heracleon (regardless of the warning in 
Prov. xxx. 6) added to the text of St. John i. 3 (viz. after the words éyévero 
obde év) the words ray év 7G xécpy, kal TH wTiva. Heracleon clearly read 
3 yéyover ev aire (wh Fv. See Orig. iv. 64. In St. John ii. 19, for év tpiot, he 
wrote éy tpirp. He also read (St. John iv. 18) (for wévre), 2g dvdpas Eoxes. 


Concerning .Marcion, who is a far more conspicuous 
personage, it will be necessary to speak more particularly. 
He has left a mark on the text of Scripture of which traces 
are distinctly recognizable at the present day’. A great 
deal more is known about him than about any other 
individual of his school. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus wrote 
against him: besides Origen and Clement of Alexandria, 
Tertullian in the West *, and Epiphanius in the East, elabor- 
ately refuted his teaching, and give us large information as 
to his method of handling Scripture. 

Another writer of this remote time who, as I am prone 
to think, must have exercised sensible influence on the text 
of Scripture was Ammonius of Alexandria. 

But Tatian beyond every other early writer of antiquity 
[appears to me to have caused alterations in the Sacred 
Text. | 

It is obviously no answer to anything that has gone 
before to insist that the Evangelium of Marcion (for 
instance), so far as it is recognizable by the notices of 
it given by Epiphanius, can very rarely indeed be shewn 
to have resembled any extant MS. of the Gospels. Let it 
be even freely granted that many of the charges brought 
against it by Epiphanius with so much warmth, collapse 
when closely examined and severely sifted. It is to be 
remembered that Marcion’s Gospel was known to be an 
heretical production: one of the many creations of the 
Gnostic age,—it must have been universally execrated 
and abhorred by faithful men. Besides this lacerated text 
of St. Luke’s Gospel, there was an Ebionite recension of 

? Celsus having objected that believers had again and again falsified the 
text of the Gospel, refashioning it, in order to meet the objections of assailants, 
Origen replies: Meraxapdgavras 52 7d evayyéAcov GAAovs ov« oda, 7) Tods amd 
Mapkiwvos, kai rods dd Ovadevtivov, ofwar 5& wat tods dad Aovedvov. Tovro 5é 
Aeydpevov ob Tod Adyou early éyKAnpa, GAAA THY ToAuHOaYTwY padiovpyjoa Ta 
evayyéAca, Opp. i. 411 B. 

2 De Praesc. Haer. c..51. 


St. Matthew: a Cerinthian exhibition of St. Mark: a 
Valentinian perversion of St. John. And we are but in- 
sisting that the effect of so many corruptions of the Truth, 
industriously propagated within far less than 100 years of 
the date of the inspired verities themselves, must needs 
have made itself sensibly felt. Add the notorious fact, 
that in the second and third centuries after the Christian 
era the text of the Gospels is found to have been grossly 
corrupted even in orthodox quarters,—and that traces of 
these gross corruptions are discoverable in certain circles 
to the present hour,—and it seems impossible not to 
connect the two phenomena together. The wonder rather 
is that, at the end of so many centuries, we are able 
distinctly to recognize any evidence whatever. 

The proneness of these early Heretics severally to adopt 
one of the four Gospels for their own, explains why there 
is no consistency observable in the corruptions they intro- 
duced into the text. It also explains the bringing into one 
Gospel of things which of right clearly belong to another— 
as in St. Mark iii. 14 ods xai dzooréAovs avdpacev. 

I do not propose (as will presently appear) in this 
way to explain any considerable number of the actual cor- 
ruptions of the text: but in no other way is it possible 
to account for such systematic mutilations as are found 
in Cod. B,—such monstrous additions as are found in 
Cod. D,—such gross perturbations as are continually met 
with in one or more, but never in all, of the earliest 
Codexes extant, as well as in the oldest Versions and 

The plan of Tatian’s Diatessaron will account for a great 
deal. He indulges in frigid glosses, as when about the wine 
at the feast of Cana in Galilee he reads that the servants 
knew ‘because they had drawn the water’; or in taste- 
less and stupid amplifications, as in the going back of the 
Centurion to his house. I suspect that the ri pe épwras 


mep tod a&yabod, ‘Why do you ask me about that which is 
good?’ is to be referred to some of these tamperers with 
the Divine Word. 

§ 8. 

These professors of ‘Gnosticism’ held no consistent 
theory. The two leading problems on which they exercised 
their perverse ingenuity are found to have been (1) the 
origin of Matter, and (2) the origin of Evil. 

(1) They taught that the world’s artificer (‘the Word’) 
was Himself a creature of ‘the Father!’ Encountered on 
the threshold of the Gospel by the plain declaration that, 
‘In the beginning was the WoRD: and the WORD was 
with Gop: and the WORD was GoD’: and presently, ‘ All 
things were made by Him’ ;—they were much exercised. 
The expedients to which they had recourse were certainly 
extraordinary. That ‘Beginning’ (said Valentinus) was 
the first thing which ‘the FATHER’ created: which He 
called ‘Only begotten SON,’ and also ‘GoD’: and in 
whom he implanted the germ of all things. Seminally, 
that is, whatsoever subsequently came into being was in 
Him. ‘The Word’ (he said) was a product of this first- 
created thing. And ‘All things were made by Him, 
because in ‘the Word’ was the entire essence of all the 
subsequent worlds (Aeons), to which he assigned forms ?. 
From which it is plain that, according to Valentinus, ‘the 

1 Odros 5& Snpovpyds nal months Todde Tod mayTds Kéopou Kal Trav év aiT@... 
éora pev Karadeéorepos Tod Tedclov Ocod ... Are 57 wal yevynrds dv, Kal ovK 
dyévyntos. Ptolemaeus, af. Epiph. p. 217. Heracleon saw in the nobleman 
of Capernaum an image of the Demiurge who, Baowdreds dvopdobn olovel puxpds 
tis BaciAreds, id KaBodArKod Baoiréws TeTaypévos emi puxpds Baoirclas, p. 373. 

2 ‘O "Iwdvyns .. . Bovdduevos eineiv tiv TaVv bday yéveow, Kad’ iv Ta wavTA 
mpoéBarev 6 Tarhp, dpynv twa bmoribeta:, 7d mp@rov yevyndey bd Tod Ocod, dy 
6% Kai vidv Movoyevh al Ocdy KéxAnnev, vy @ 7A mavta 6 Tlarhp mpoéBare 
oneppatinas. “nd 5& todrouv pyot tiv Adyov mpoBeBAjoOa, wai év aiTS Thv 
bAnv trav Aldvay obciay, iv adtds torepov eudppwoev 6 Adyos. ... Tdvra & 
avo éyévero, kat xwpis abrod éyévero obde Ev* maar yap ToIs pet’ adrdv Aidar 
poppas Kal yevécews alr:os 6 Adyos éyévero, 


WorRD’ was distinct from ‘the SON’; who was zof the 
world’s Creator. Both alike, however, he acknowledged 
to be ‘Gop?’: but only, as we have seen already, using 
the term in an inferior sense. 

Heracleon, commenting on St. John i. 3, insists that 
‘all things’ can but signify this perishable world and the 
things that are therein: not essences of a loftier nature. 
Accordingly, after the words ‘and without Him was not 
anything made,’ he ventures to interpolate this clause,—‘ of 
the things that are in the world and in the creation 2’ 
True, that the Evangelist had declared with unmistakable 
emphasis, ‘and without Him was not anything’ (literally, 
‘was not even one thing’) ‘made that was made.’ 
But instead of ‘not even one thing, the Valentinian 
Gnostics appear to have written ‘nothing*’; and the 
concluding clause ‘that was made,’ because he found it 
simply unmanageable, Valentinus boldly severed from its 
context, making it the beginning of a fresh sentence. 
With the Gnostics, ver. 4 is found to have begun thus,— 
‘What was made in Him was life.’ 

Of the change of ovdé & into ovdéy * traces survive in many 
of the Fathers®: but 8 and Dare the only Uncial MSS. which 
are known to retain that corrupt reading.—The uncouth 
sentence which follows (3 yéyovey év ait (wi jv), singular 

1 *Ey 7 Marpi «ai ée rod Marpds 4 dpxn, kat te rhs dpyfs 6 Adyos. Kadas 
obv elnev’ év dpyh Fv 6 Adyos* Hv yap & 7H Tid. Kat 6 Adyos qv mpds Tov 
@cdv* Kal yap 4 Apxt Kat @cds Fv 5 Adyos, dxodovOws. Td yap éx Oeod -yerynber 
@eds éorw.—Ibid. p. 102. Compare the Excerpt. Theod. af. Clem. Al. c. vi. 
p- 968. 

2 Ap. Orig. 938. 9. 

® So Theodotus (p. 980), and so Ptolemaeus (af. Epiph. i. 217), and so 
Heracleon (a. Orig. p. 954). Also Meletius the Semi-Arian (af. Epiph. 
i. 882). 

* See The Traditional Text, p. 113. 

5 Clem. Al. always has od8 & (viz. pp. 134, 156, 273, 769, 787, 803, 812, 
815, 820): but when he quotes the Gnostics (p. 838) he has ovdév. Cyril, 
while writing his treatise De Trinitate, read oddév in his copy. Eusebius, 

for example, has ob8é éy, fifteen times; ovdé only twice, viz. Praep. 322: 
Esai. 529. 


to relate, was generally tolerated, became established in 
many quarters, and meets us still at every step. It was 
evidently put forward so perseveringly by the Gnostics, 
with whom it was a kind of article of the faith, that the 
orthodox at last became too familiar with it. Epiphanius, 
though he condemns it, once employs it?. Occurring first 
in a fragment of Valentinus?: next, in the Commentary 
of Heracleon?: after that, in the pages of Theodotus the 
Gnostic (A.D. 192)*: then, in an exposure by Hippolytus 
of the tenets of the Nadseni®, (a subsection of the same 
school) ;—the baseness of its origin at least is undeniable. 
But inasmuch as the words may be made to bear a loyal 
interpretation, the heretical construction of St. John i. 3 
was endured by the Church for full 200 years. Clemens 
Alex. is observed thrice to adopt it®: Origen’ and Euse- 
bius® fall into it repeatedly. It is found in Codd. NCD: 
apparently in Cod. A, where it fills one line exactly. Cyril 
comments largely on-it®. But as fresh heresies arose 
which the depraved text seemed to favour, the Church 
bestirred herself and remonstrated. It suited the Arians 
and the Macedonians !°, who insisted that the HOLY GHOST 

1 Opp. ii. 74. ? Ap. Iren. 102. 8 Ibid. 940. 

* Ap. Clem. Al. 968, 973. 

> Philosoph. 107. But not when he is refuting the tenets of the Peratae : 
ov5e ev, 5 yéyovev. ev ait (wh éotw. ev aire 5€, pnaiv, } Eva yéyover, } Eva 
(an. Ibid. p. 134. 

® Opp. 114, 218, 1009. 

7 Cels. vi. 5: Princip. II. ix. 4: IV. i. 30: In Joh. i. 22, 34: ii. 6, 10, 12, 13 
éis: In Rom. iii. 10, 15: Haer, v. 151. 

* Psalm. 146, 235, 245: Marcell. 237. Not so in Ecl. 100: Praep. 322, 

® ’Avayxaiws pnaiv, “ } yéyover, év aitd Can) Fv.” od pdvor pyat, “ be’ abrod 
Ta mavra éyévero,” GAAA Kai ei Te yéyovey Hy ev abTe H (an. ovr’ éorw, 6 
povoyerijs TOU Oeod Adyos, 7) mavTwy dpyyn, Kal ovoTacts dpaTay Te Kal dopaTrav 
...abrds ydp indpyov 4 Kkatd vow (on, 7d eva Kal CRv Kal mveioOa modrv- 
Tpérws Tois over xapicera, Opp. iv. 49 e. 

He understood the Evangelist to declare concerning the Adyos, that, mav7a 
8: abrov éyévero, Kal Ry év Trois yevopévars ds Can. Ibid. 60 c. 

© Obra 5€ BovAovra adrd elva xricpa Kricpatos, act yap, Ste wavra oi’ 
aitov yéyove, kal xwpis adrod éyévero ob3e Ev. dpa, pact, cal 7d TIvedpa é« Trav 


is a creature. The former were refuted by Epiphanius, 
who points out that the sense is not complete until you 
have read the words 6 yéyovev. A fresh sentence (he says) 
begins at ’Ev ait@ (wi) jv 1. Chrysostom deals with the 
latter. ‘ Let us beware of putting the full stop’ (he says) 
‘at the words od8% é&,—-as do the heretics. In order to 
make out that the SPIRIT is a creature, they read 6 yéyovev 
év avt@ (wi jv: by which means the Evangelist’s meaning 
becomes unintelligible *.’ 

But in the meantime, Valentinus, whose example was 
followed by Theodotus and by at least two of the Gnostic 
sects against whom Hippolytus wrote, had gone further. 
The better to conceal St. John’s purpose, the heresiarch 
falsified the inspired text. In the place of, ‘What was 
made in Him, was life,’ he substituted ‘What was made 
in Him, zs life. Origen had seen copies so depraved, and 
judged the reading not altogether improbable. Clement, 
on a single occasion, even adopted it. It was the approved 
reading of the Old Latin versions,—a memorable indication, 
by the way, of a quarter from which the Old Latin derived 
their texts,—which explains why it is found in Cyprian, 
Hilary, and Augustine ; and why Ambrose has so elabor- 
ately vindicated its sufficiency. It also appears in the 
Sahidic and in Cureton’s Syriac; but not in the Peshitto, 
nor in the Vulgate. [Nor in the Bohairic.] In the mean- 
time, the only Greek Codexes which retain this singular 
trace of the Gnostic period at the present day, are Codexes 
& and D. 

§ 4. 
[We may now take some more instances to shew the 
effects of the operations of Heretics. | 

moimnparov indpxe, red) wdvra b¢ adtod yéyove. Opp. i. 741. Which is the 
teaching of Eusebius, Marcell. 333-4. The Macedonians were an offshoot of 
the Arians. 

? i. 778 D, 779 B. See also ii. 80. 2 Opp. viii. 40. 


The good Shepherd in a certain place (St. John x. 14, 15) 
says concerning Himself—‘ I know My sheep and am known 
of Mine, even as the FATHER knoweth Me and I know the 
FATHER’: by which words He hints at a mysterious 
knowledge as subsisting between Himself and those that 
are His. And yet it is worth observing that whereas He 
describes the knowledge which subsists between the FATHER 
and the SON in language which implies that it is strictly 
identical on either side, He is careful to distinguish 
between the knowledge which subsists between the creature 
and the CREATOR by slightly varying the expression,— 
thus leaving it to be inferred that it is not, neither indeed 
can be, on either side the same. GOD knoweth us with 
a perfect knowledge. Our so-called ‘knowledge’ of Gop 
is a thing different not only in degree, but in kind?. 
Hence the peculiar form which the sentence assumes * :— 
ywoéokw Td eua, Kal yiwwodcKkoua. bmd Tév éuov. And this 
delicate diversity of phrase has been faithfully retained all 
down the ages, being witnessed to at this hour by every 
MS. in existence except four now well known to us: viz. 
NBDL. The Syriac also retains it,—as does Macarius °, 
Gregory Naz.*, Chrysostom’, Cyril®, Theodoret’, Maximus’®. 
It is a point which really admits of no rational doubt: for 
does any one suppose that if St. John had written ‘ Mine 
own know Me,’ 996 MSS. out of 1000 at the end of 1,800 
years would exhibit, ‘I am known of Mine’? 

But in fact it is discovered that these words of our LORD 
experienced depravation at the hands of the Manichaean 

' Consider 1 John ii. 3, 4: and read Basil ii. 188 b, c. See p. 207, note 4. 
Consider also Gal. iv. 9. So Cyril Al. [iv. 655 a], wai mpoéyrw paGAdov 7 
éyvwobn tap’ Hpaor. 

* Chrysostom alone seems to have noticed this :—iva pi) Ths yvdoews toov tov 
hétpov vopiops, dxovcov mas diopOodra aitd TH enaywyp’ ywhonw Ta épud, 
gna, Kal ywwoKropa trd ray éuav. GAA’ ove ton h yous, K.7T.A. Vill. 352 d. 

8 P. 38. (Gall. vii. 26.) * i. 298, 613. 

5 viii. 351, 352 dande. 6 iv, 652 c, 653 a, 654d. 

7 i. 748: iv. 274, 550. § In Dionys, Ar. ii. 192. 


heretics. Besides inverting the clauses, (and so making it 
appear that such knowledge begins on the side of Man,) 
Manes (A. D. 261) obliterated the peculiarity above indicated. 
Quoting from his own fabricated Gospel, he acquaints us 
with the form in which these words were exhibited in that 
mischievous production: viz. ywocoKe: pe Ta eud, kal ywvdoKw 
Ta eua. This we learn from Epiphanius and from Basil 1. 
Cyril, in a paper where he makes clear reference to the 
same heretical Gospel, insists that the order of knowledge 
must needs be the reverse of what the heretics pretended ”. 
—But then, it is found that certain of the orthodox con- 
tented themselves with merely reversing the clauses, and 
so restoring the true order of the spiritual process discussed 
—regardless of the exquisite refinement of expression to 
which attention was called at the outset. Copies must 
once have abounded which represented our LORD as say- 
ing, ‘I know My own and My own know Me, even as the 
FATHER knoweth Me and I know the FATHER’; for it is 
the order of the Old Latin, Bohairic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, 
Lewis, Georgian, Slavonic, and Gothic, though not of the 
Peshitto, Harkleian, and Armenian; and Eusebius*, Nonnus, 
and even Basil* so read the place. But no token of this 
clearly corrupt reading survives in any known copy of the 

1 Snot 52 6 abrds Méyns ... 7a End mpdBara ywhoKe pe, Kal ywdonw 7a epd 
mpéBata. (Epiphan. i. 697.)—Again,—fpnacer 6 aiperixds mpds Ti idiay xata- 
oxeviv tis BrXacdnplas. idot, gnaw, eipntar’ Ste ywhoxovol (lower down, 
yivhoKwe) pe 7a épd, Kai ywwoKnw Ta ena. (Basil ii. 188 a, b.) 

2 "Ey rage Th olxela nal mpemwdeorary Tav mpayparaw Exacta TiHels. od yap 
zon, yuwhowe pe 7a eud, wal ywwhoKm Ta end, GAX’ éavTdy eyvwxdra mpoTeEpov 
clopéper 7a. ida mpdBara, «f6" obras ywaobhoecbat pyar wap’ aitay . . . obx mpueis 
abrév éneywioxaper mpOror, eméyrw 8% Huds mparov abrdés... odx Hpets iptdpeba 
Tod mpayparos, GAN’ S &e eod Ocds povoyerhs.—iv. 654d, 655 a. (Note, that 
this passage appears in a mutilated form, viz. 121 words are omitted, in the 
Catena of Corderius, p. 267,—where it is wrongly assigned to Chrysostom: 
an instructive instance.) 

8 In Ps. 489: in Es. 509: Theoph. 185, 258, 260. 

‘ ii. 188 a:—which is the more remarkable, because Basil proceeds ex- 
quisitely to shew (1886) that man’s ‘ knowledge’ of Gop consists in his 
keeping of Gop’s Commandments. (1 John ii. 3, 4.) See p. 206, note I. 


Gospels,—except NBDL. Will it be believed that never- 
theless all the recent Editors of Scripture since Lachmann 
insist on obliterating this refinement of language, and going 
back to the reading which the Church has long since 
deliberately rejected,—to the manifest injury of the de- 
posit? ‘Many words about a trifle;—some will be found 
to say. Yes, to deny GOD’S truth is a very facile pro- 
ceeding. Its rehabilitation always requires many words. 
I request only that the affinity between NBDL and the 
Latin copies which universally exhibit this disfigurement’, 
may be carefully noted. [Strange to say, the true reading 
receives no notice from Westcott and Hort, or the Revisers?. | 

§ 5. 


The question of Matrimony was one of those on which 
the early heretics freely dogmatized. Saturninus® (A.D. 120) 
and his followers taught that marriage was a production of 

Weare not surprised after this to find that those places 
in the Gospel which bear on the relation between man and 
wife exhibit traces of perturbation. I am not asserting 
that the heretics themselves depraved the text. I do but | 
state two plain facts: viz. (1) That whereas in the second 
century certain heretical tenets on the subject of Marriage 
prevailed largely, and those who advocated as well as those 
who opposed such teaching relied chiefly on the Gospel for 
their proofs: (2) It is accordingly found that not only does 
the phenomenon of ‘various readings’ prevail in those 

* So Jerome, iv. 484: vii. 455. Strange, that neither Ambrose nor 
Augustine should quote the place. 

? See Revision Revised, p. 220. 

* Or Saturnilus—ro 82 yapeiv nal yevvGv dnd rod Sarava pnotv elva. p. 245, 
1. 38. So Marcion, 253. 


places of the Gospel which bear most nearly on the 
disputed points, but the ‘readings’ are exactly of that 
suspicious kind which would naturally result from a tamper- 
ing with the text by men who had to maintain, or else to 
combat, opinions of a certain class. I proceed to establish 
what I have been saying by some actual examples?. 

St. Matt. xix. 29. St. Mark x. 29. St. Luke xviii. 29. 
N yvva.ka, nN yvvatka, 7] yvva.Ka, 

—BD abc Orig. —NBDA abc, &c. all allow it. 

Srav be héyn’ Ste “Tas Sotis Apijxe yuvaixa,’ ov rodrd pyow, 
dote 4tAGs SiacracOa Tors ydpous, x.7.A. Chrys. vii. 636 E. 

Tlapaderyparioa: (in St. Matt. i. 19) is another of the 
expressions which have been disturbed by the same con- 
troversy. I suspect that Origen is the author (see the 
heading of the Scholion in Cramer’s Catenae) of a certain 
uncritical note which Eusebius reproduces in his ‘ quaes- 
tiones ad Stephanum”’ on the difference between derypatloa 
and zapaderypatioa ; and that with him originated the sub- 
stitution of the uncompounded for the compounded verb 
in this place. Be that as it may, Eusebius certainly read 
mapadevypatioat (Dem. 320), with all the uncials but two 
(BZ): all the cursives but one (1). Will it be believed 
that Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott 
and Hort, on such slender evidence as that are prepared to 
reconstruct the text of St. Matthew’s Gospel ? 

It sounds so like trifling with a reader’s patience to 
invite his attention to an elaborate discussion of most of 
the changes introduced into the text by Tischendorf and 
his colleagues, that I knowingly pass over many hundreds 
of instances where I am nevertheless perfectly well aware 

1 [The MS. breaks off here, with references to St. Mark x. 7, Eph. v. 31-2 
(on which the Dean had accumulated a large array of references), St. Mark x. 
29-30, with a few references, but no more. I have not had yet time or 
strength to work out the subject.] 

2 Mai, iv. 221. 

Ik, P 


of my own strength_my opponent’s weakness. Such 
discussions in fact become unbearable when the points in 
dispute are confessedly trivial. No one however will deny 
that when three consecutive words of our LORD are 
challenged they are worth contending for. We are invited 
then to believe (St. Luke xxii. 67-8) that He did not utter 
the bracketed words in the following sentence,—‘ If I tell you, 
ye will not believe ; and if I ask you, ye will not answer (Me, 
nor let Me go).’ Now, I invite the reader to inquire for the 
grounds of this assertion. Fifteen of the uncials (includ- 
ing AD), and every known cursive, besides all the Latin 
and all the Syriac copies recognize the bracketed words. 
They are only missing in NBLT and their ally the Bohairic. 
Are we nevertheless to be assured that the words are to be 
regarded as spurious? Let the reader then be informed 
that Marcion left out seven words more (viz. all from, ‘And 
if I ask you’ to the end), and will he doubt either that the 
words are genuine or that their disappearance from four 
copies of bad character, as proved by their constant evidence, 
and from one version is sufficiently explained ? 


§ 1. 

ANOTHER cause why, in very early times, the Text of 
the Gospels underwent serious depravation, was mistaken 
solicitude on the part of the ancient orthodox for the 
purity of the Catholic faith. These persons, like certain 
of the moderns, Beza for example, evidently did not think 
it at all wrong to tamper with the inspired Text. If any 
expression seemed to them to have a dangerous tendency, 
they altered it, or transplanted it, or removed it bodily 
from the sacred page. About the uncritical nature of 
what they did, they entertained no suspicion: about the 
immorality of the proceeding, they evidently did not 
trouble themselves at all. On the contrary, the piety of the 
motive seems to have been held to constitute a sufficient 
excuse for any amount of licence. The copies which had 
undergone this process of castigation were even styled 
‘corrected,—and doubtless were popularly looked upon 
as ‘the correct copies’ [like our ‘critical texts’]. An 
illustration of this is afforded by a circumstance mentioned 
by Epiphanius. 



He states (ii. 36) that the orthodox, out of jealousy for 
the Lorp’s Divinity, eliminated from St. Luke xix. 41 the - 
record that our SAVIOUR ‘wept.’ We will not pause to 
inquire what this statement may be worth. But when the 
same Father adds,—‘In the uncorrected copies (év rots 
adiopOdro.s avtiypdpo.s) is found “ He wept,”’ Epiphanius is 
instructive. Perfectly well aware that the expression is 
genuine, he goes on to state that ‘Irenaeus quoted it in 
his work against Heresies, when he had to confute the 
error of the Docetae’.’ ‘Nevertheless, Epiphanius adds, 
‘the orthodox through fear erased the record.’ 

So then, the process of ‘correction’ was a critical process 
conducted on utterly erroneous principles by men who 
knew nothing whatever about Textual Criticism. Such 
recensions of the Text proved simply fatal to the Deposit. 
To ‘correct’ was in this and such like cases simply to 

Codexes BND may be regarded as specimens of Codexes 
which have once and again passed through the’hands of 
such a corrector or d10pdwrys. 

St. Luke (ii. 40) records concerning the infant SAVIOUR 
that ‘the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit.’ By 
repeating the selfsame expression which already,—viz. in 
chap. i. 80,—had been applied to the Childhood of the 
Forerunner’, it was clearly the design of the Author of 
Scripture to teach that THE WORD ‘ made flesh’ submitted 
to the same laws of growth and increase as every other 
Son of Adam. The body ‘grew,’—the spiritual part 
‘waxed strong.’ This statement was nevertheless laid hold 
of by the enemies of Christianity. How can it be pre- 
tended (they asked) that He was ‘perfect GOD’ (réAewos 
@cds), of whom it is related in respect of His spirit that 

1 TIpds rots Soxhoe tov Xprordv mepyvéva A€yovTas. 
2 Td 52 madiov nigave, al éxparaodro mvevpartt. 


he ‘waxed strong’’? The consequence might have been 
foreseen. Certain of the orthodox were ill-advised enough 
to erase the word zavevyar. from the copies of St. Luke 
ii 40; and lo, at the end of 1,500 years, four ‘corrected’ 
copies, two Versions, one Greek Father, survive to bear 
witness to the ancient fraud. No need to inquire which, 
what, and who these be. 

But because it is NBDL, Origen?, and the Latin, the 
Egyptian and Lewis which are without the word zvedparu, 
Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and the Revisers jump 
to the conclusion that wvedyari is a spurious accretion to 
the Text. They ought to reverse their proceeding; and 
recognize in the evidence one more indication of the un- 
trustworthiness of the witnesses. For,—how then is it 
supposed that the word (zvedyart) ever obtained its footing 
in the Gospel? For all reply we are assured that it has 
been imported hither from St. Luke i. 80. But, we rejoin, 
How does the existence of the phrase éxpara.otro mvedpart 
in i. 80 explain its existence in ii. 40, in every known 
copy of the Gospels except four, if in these 996 places, 
suppose, it be an interpolation? This is what has to be 
explained. Is it credible that all the remaining uncials, 
and every known cursive copy, besides all the lectionaries, 
should have been corrupted in this way: and that the truth 
should survive exclusively at this time only in the re- 
maining four; viz. in B-X,—the sixth century Cod. D,— 
and the eighth century Cod. L? 

When then, and where did the work of depravation take 
place? It must have been before the sixth century, because 
Leontius of Cyprus* quotes it three times and discusses 
the expression at length :—before the fifth, because, besides 

1 It is the twenty-fourth and the thirtieth question in the first Dialogus of 
pseudo-Caesarius (Gall. vi. 17, 20). 

? Opp. iii. 953, 954,—with suspicious emphasis. 

8 Ed. Migne, vol. 93, p. 1581 a, b (Novum Auct. i. 700). 


Cod. A, Cyril !, Theodoret? and ps.-Caesarius * recognize the 
word :—before the fourth, because Epiphanius*, Theodore 
of Mopsuestia °, and the Gothic version have it :—before the 
third, before nearly all of the second century, because it 
is found in the Peshitto. What more plain than that we 
have before us one other instance of the injudicious zeal of 
the orthodox? one more sample of the infelicity of modern 
criticism ? 

§ 2. 

Theodotus and his followers fastened on the first part 
of St. John viii. 40, when they pretended to shew from 
Scripture that CHRIST is mere Man®. I am persuaded 
that the reading ‘of My Father’’—with which Origen 8, 
Epiphanius®, Athanasius?°, Chrysostom™, Cyril Alex.?*, 

* When Cyril writes (Scholia, ed. Pusey, vol. vi. 568),—“ Td 5é ma:diov nifave 
kal éxpara.ovtro TINEYMATI, wAnpovpevoy SOIA kal XAPITI.” xairo. xara 
pvow tmavTérAads eat ws Oeds Kal ef idiov wAnpwpatos Kavéper Trois ayios Ta 
TINETMATIKA, kal airés éorw 4 SOPIA, nal rps XAPITOS 6 So7Hp,—it is clear 
that mvevpars must have stood in Cyril’s text. The same is the reading of 
Cyril’s Treatise, De Incarnatione (Mai, ii. 57): and of his Commentary on 
St. Luke (ibid. p. 136). One is surprised at Tischendorf’s perverse inference 
concerning the last-named place. Cyril had begun by quoting the whole of 
ver. 40 im exact conformity with the traditional text (Mai, ii. 136). At the 
close of some remarks (found both in Mai and in Cramer’s Catena), Cyril 
proceeds as follows, according to the latter :—é Evayyedoris pn “ nigave kat 
éxpataiovto”’ KAI TA EZHS. Surely this constitutes no ground for supposing 
that he did not recognize the word mvevyar:, but rather that he did. On the 
other hand, it is undeniable that in V. P. ii. 138 and 139 (=Concilia iii. 241 d, 
244 a), from Pusey’s account of what he found in the MSS. (vii. P. i. 277-8), 
the word mvevpar: must be suspected of being an unauthorized addition to the 
text of Cyril’s treatise, De Recta fide ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam. 

? ji. 152: iv. 112: v. 120, 121 (four times). 

° Ei rédeds éore eds 6 Xprords, was 6 ebayyedoTIs A€yer, TO 5e madiov 
*Inoovs nifave kal éxparaodro mvedpar: ;—S. Caesarii, Dialogus I, Quaest. 24 
(ap. Galland, vi. 17 c). And see Quaest. 30. 

*"1i..30 di: 

5 Fragmenta Syriaca, ed. Sachau, p. 53.—The only other Greek Fathers who 
quote the place are Euthymius and Theophylact. 

° “Hy #jxovoa mapa rod Weod. Epiph.i. 463. 7 Instead of mapd rod @cod. 

* i. 410: iv. 294, 534. Elsewhere he defends and employs it. 

* i. 260, 463: ii. 49. i, 705.  ™* wii gOg. 42 (Glaph.) i. 18. 



and Theodoret! prove to have been acquainted,—was sub- 
stituted by some of the orthodox in this place, with the 
pious intention of providing a remedy for the heretical 
teaching of their opponents. At the present day only six 
cursive copies are known to retain this trace of a corruption 
of Scripture which must date from the second century. 

We now reach a most remarkable instance. It will be 
remembered that St. John in his grand preface does not rise 
to the full height of his sublime argument until he reaches the 
eighteenth verse. He had said (ver. 14) that ‘the Word was 
made flesh,’ &c.; a statement which Valentinus was willing 
to admit. But, as we have seen, the heresiarch and his 
followers denied that ‘the Word’ is also ‘the Son’ of Gop. 
As if in order to bar the door against this pretence, 
St. John announces (ver. 18) that ‘the only begotten Son, 
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared 
him’: thus establishing the identity of the Word and the 
Only begotten Son. What else could the Valentinians do 
with so plain a statement, but seek to deprave it? Ac- 
cordingly, the very first time St. John i. 18 is quoted by 
any of the ancients, it is accompanied by the statement 
that the Valentinians in order to prove that the ‘only 
begotten’ is ‘the Beginning,’ and is ‘GOD, appeal to the 
words,—‘ the only begotten GOD who is in the bosom of 
the Father?’ &c. Inasmuch, said they, as the Father 
willed to become known to the worlds, the Spirit of Gnosis 
produced the ‘only begotten’ ‘Gnosis, and therefore gave 
birth to ‘Gnosis,’ that is to ‘the Son’: in order that by 
‘the Son’ ‘the Father’ might be made known. While 
then that ‘only begotten Son’ abode ‘in the bosom of the 

1 iy. 83, 430. But both Origen (i. 705: iv. 320, 402) and Cyril (iv. 554: 
v. 758) quote the traditional reading ; and Cyril (iv. 549) distinctly says that 
the latter is right, and mapa rod matpés wrong. ‘ : 

2 Excerpt. Theod. 968.—Heracleon’s name is also connected by Origen with 
this text. Valentinus (af. Iren. 100) says, dv 5%) ai vidy Movoyev7 kat Oedv 


Father, He caused that here upon earth should be seen, 
alluding to ver. 14, one ‘as the only begotten Son.’ In 
which, by the way, the reader is requested to note that 
the author of the Excerpta Theodoti (a production of the 
second century) reads St. John i. 18 as we do. 

I have gone into all these strange details,—derived, let it 
be remembered, from documents which carry us back to 
the former half of the second century,—because in no other 
way is the singular phenomenon which attends the text 
of St. John i. 18 to be explained and accounted for. 
Sufficiently plain and easy of transmission as it is, this 
verse of Scripture is observed to exhibit perturbations 
which are even extraordinary. Irenaeus once writes 6 [?] 
povoyerns vids: once, 6 [?] povoyerns Oeds: once, 6 povoyevis 
vids Ocot!: Clemens Alex., 6 povoyerns vids Ocds pdvos?; 
which must be very nearly the reading of the Codex from 
which the text of the Vercelli Copy of the Old Latin was 
derived®, Eusebius four times writes 6 povoyerns vids*: 
twice, povoyer7js Oeds°: and on one occasion gives his reader 
the choice of either expression, explaining why both may 
stand®. Gregory Nyss.’ and Basil *, though they recognize 
the usual reading of the place, are evidently vastly more 
familiar with the reading 6 povoyevjs Oeds®: for Basil 

* Pp. 627, 630, 466. 2 P. 956. 
* Deum nemo vidit umquam: nisi unicus filius solus, sinum patris ipse 
enarravit.’—(Comp. Tertullian :—‘ Solus filius patrem novit et sinum patris ipse 

exposuit’ (Prax. c. 8. Cp.c. 21): but he elsewhere (ibid. c. 15) exhibits the 
passage in the usual way.) Clemens writes,—rdére éwomrevoes Tov KbATOY TOU 
Tlatpés, dv 6 povoyeris vids @eds pdvos éfnyhoaro (956), and in the Excerpt. 
Theod. we find obros roy KdAwov Tod Tarpds éfnynoato 6 Swrhp (969). But 
this is unintelligible until it is remembered that our LorD is often spoken 
of by the Fathers as 4 defid rod ipiorov ... wéAmos be THs Sefids 6 Marhp. 
(Greg. Nyss. i. 192.) 

* Ps. 440 (—6): Marcell. 165, 179, 273. 

° Marcell. 334: Theoph. 14. ® Marcell, 132. Read on to p. 134. 

7 Opp. ii. 466. ® Opp. iii. 23, 358. 

® Greg. Nyss. Opp. i. 192, 663 (O€ds mavtws 5 povoyevhs, 6 év Tois KéATOS 
dv Tov Iazpés, otrws elmdvros Tod "Iwdvvov). Also ii. 432, 447, 45°, 47°, 506: 
(always év rois xéAmos), Basil, Opp. iii. 12. 


adopts the expression thrice, and Gregory nearly thirty- 
three times as often*. This was also the reading of Cyril 
Alex. *, whose usual phrase however is 6 povoyevijs to} Ocod 
*, Didymus has only [? cp. context] 6 povoyeris Ocds, 
—for which he once writes 6 povoyevijs Oeds Adyos®. Cyril 
of Jer. seems to have read 6 povoyeviys pdvos ®, 

[I have retained this valuable and suggestive passage in 
the form in which the Dean left it. It evidently has not 
the perfection that attends some of his papers, and would 
have been amplified and improved if his life had been 
spared. More passages than he noticed, though limited 
to the ante-Chrysostom period, are referred to in the 


companion volume‘. The portentous number of mentions 
by Gregory of Nyssa escaped me, though I knew that 
there were several. Such repetitions of a phrase could 
only be admitted into my calculation in a restricted and 
representative number. Indeed, I often quoted at least on 
our side less than the real number of such reiterations 
occurring in one passage, because in course of repetition 
they came to assume for such a purpose a parrot-like value. 

But the most important part of the Dean’s paper is 
found in his account of the origin of the expression. This 
inference is strongly confirmed by the employment of it 

1 Basil, Opp. iii. 14, 16, 117 : and so Eunomius (ibid. i. 623). 

* Contra Eunom. J have noted ninety-eight places. 

$ Cyril (iv. 104) paraphrases St. John i. 18 thus:—adrds yap @cds av 6 
povoyerns, év KéAmas dv ToD @¢od Kal marpés, TavTny mpds Huas érojoato TIVv 
eéhynow. Presently (p. 105), he says that St. John «al “ povoyer @cdy”’ 
dmoxare? roy vidv, wat “ év Kédmas” eivac pyot Tod matpds, But on p. 107 
he speaks quite plainly; “6 povoyerys,” pai, “ @cds, 6 dy els Tov KéATOV TOU 
marpés, éxeivos enyhaaro.” émedi) yap epy “ povoyerf,” wai “ Ocdv,” Tidnow 
ev6us, “6 dv ey rots xéAmos Tod watpds.”—So y. 137, 768. And yet he reads 
vids in v. 365, 437: Vi. 90. 

* He uses it seventeen times in his Comm. on Isaiah (ii. 4, 35, 122, &c-), 
and actually so reads St. John i. 18 in one place (Opp. vi. 187). Theodoret 
once adopts the phrase (Opp. v. 4). 

5 De Trin. 76, 140, 372 :—27. ePcilys 

? Traditional Text, p. 113, where the references are given. 


in the Arian controversy. Arius reads Oeds (ap. Epiph. 
73—Tischendorf), whilst his opponents read TYids. So 
Faustinus seven times (I noted him only thrice), and 
Victorinus Afer six (10) times in reply to the Arian Can- 
didus?. Also Athanasius and Hilary of Poictiers four 
times each, and Ambrose eight (add Epp. I. xxii. 5). It 
is curious that with this history admirers of B and N 
should extol their reading over the Traditional reading 
on the score of orthodoxy. Heresy had and still retains 
associations which cannot be ignored : in this instance some 
of the orthodox weakly played into the hands of heretics”. 
None may read Holy Scripture just as the idea strikes 
them. | 
§ 3. 

All are familiar with the received text of 1 Cor. xv. 47: 
—6 mpGtos avOpwmos ex ys xoikds' 6 devtepos dvOpwros 6 
Kipios é€ ovpavod. That this place was so read in the first 
age is certain: for so it stands in the Syriac. These early 
heretics however of whom St. John speaks, who denied 
that ‘ JESUS CHRIST had come in the flesh °,’ and who are 
known to have freely ‘taken away from the words’ of 
Scripture *, are found to have made themselves busy here. 
If (they argued) ‘the second man’ was indeed ‘the Lord- 
from-Heaven, how can it be pretended that CHRIST took 
upon Himself human flesh®? And to bring out this 
contention of theirs more plainly, they did not hesitate 
to remove as superfluous the word ‘ man’ in the second 

1 Who quoted Arius’ words :—‘ Subsistit ante tempora et aeones Alenus Deus, 
unigenitus, et immutabilis.’ But I cannot yet find Tischendorf’s reference. 

? The reading Tids is established by unanswerable evidence. 

%’ The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus were the direct precursors of 
Apolonius, Photinus, Nestorius, &c., in assailing the Catholic doctrine of the 
Incarnation. Their heresy must have been actively at work when St. John 
wrote his first (iv. 1, 2, 3) and second (ver. 7) Epistles. 

* Rev. xxii. 19. 

5 ’Emmndaow tiv of aiperixol éyovres: idod ov« dvédaBe aapea 6 Xpatds* 6 
dedr. yap pnow GvOp. 6 x. e odpavod. Chrys. iii. 114 b. 


clause of the sentence. There resulted,—‘ The first man 
[was] of the earth, earthy: 6 detrepos Kupios é& odpavod}.’ 
It is thus that Marcion ? (A.D. 130) and his followers * read 
the place. But in this subject-matter extravagance in one 
direction is ever observed to beget extravagance in another. 
I suspect that it was in order to counteract the ejec- 
tion by the heretics of dvOpwzros in ver. 47, that, early in 
the second century, the orthodox retaining dv@pwmos, 
judged it expedient to leave out the expression 6 Kupuos, 
which had been so unfairly pressed against them; and 
were contented to read,—‘the second man [was] from 
heaven.’ A calamitous exchange, truly. For first, (I), 
The text thus maimed afforded countenance to another 
form of misbelief. And next, (II), It necessitated a further 
change in 1 Cor. xv. 47. 

(I) It furnished a pretext to those heretics who main- 
tained that CHRIST was ‘Man’ defore He came into the 
World. This heresy came to a head in the persons of 
Apolinarius* and Photinus; in contending with whom, 
Greg. Naz.° and Epiphanius® are observed to argue with 
disadvantage from the mutilated text. Tertullian’, and 
Cyprian * after him, knew no other reading but ‘secundus 

1 [iv ydp xara cdpKa yévynow Tod Xpiorod dvedeiv BovAdpevor, évnddagay 76, 
6 SedTEpos avOpwnos’ Kal énoinaav, 6 dedTepos Kipios. Dial. (ag. Orig.] i. 868.— 
Marcion had in fact already substituted Kupsos for dvOpwmos in ver. 45: (‘the 
last Lord became a quickening spirit’:) [Tertull. ii. 304]—a fabricated reading 
which is also found to have been upheld by Marcion’s followers :—é éoxaTos 
Kupios eis mv. (w. Dial. ub¢ supra. ee yap aitovs, ei ye Ta ebaryyéda evipwv, 
ph neprrépve ra edayyéda, phy pépn Trav cbayyediov eupedeiv, pa) Erepa 
mpocOqva, phre Adyv, pHTe idia yupy TA edayyéAca mpooypape. ss 
mpooyeypaphKac. yoov baa BeBovdAnvra, kal égupeidavro boa Kexpixact, Titus 
of Bostra c. Manichaeos (Galland. v. 328). ; 

 Tertull. ii. 304, (Primus homo de humo terrenus, secundus Dominus de 

§ Dial. [Orig. i.] 868, (6 devrepos Kipros &é¢ obpavov). " te 

4 Td 38 ndvrov xadenwrarov év Tais éxxdnovaoriKais ouppopais, 7 THY “ATo- 
Awapiatav éott mappyoia, Greg. Naz. ii. 167. 

5 ii, 168,—a very interesting place. See also p. 87. ; 

i, 83t. 7 iis 443, 531. 

® Pp. 180, 209, 260, 289, 307 ( primus homo de terrae limo, &c.). 


homo de Caelo,’—which is in fact the way this place stands 
in the Old Latin. And thus, from the second century 
downwards, two readings (for the Marcionite text was 
speedily forgotten) became current in the Church :—(1) 
The inspired language of the Apostle, cited at the outset,— 
which is retained by all the known copies, except nine ; and 
is vouched for by Basil’, Chrysostom’, Theodotus °, 
Eutherius*, Theodorus Mops.°, Damascene®, Petrus 
Siculus’, and Theophylact*: and (2) The corrected (i.e. 
the maimed) text of the orthodox ;—6 detrepos’ dvOpw7os 
e€ ovpavod: with which, besides the two Gregories®, 
Photinus '° and Apolinarius the heretics were acquainted ; 
but which at this day is only known to survive in 
X*BCD*EFG and two cursive copies. Origen™, and 
(long after him) Cyril, employed doth readings ™. 

(II) But then, (as all must see) such a maimed exhibition 
of the text was intolerable. The balance of the sentence had 
been destroyed. Against 6 mpéros dvOpwmos, St. Paul had 
set 6 devTepos GvOpwros : against éx yns—逧& ovpavod: against 
xoixds—é Kupios. Remove 6 Kupios, and some substitute for it 
must be invented as a counterpoise to xoixds. Takinga hint 
from what is found in ver. 48, some one (plausibly enough,) 
suggested ézovpdvios: and this gloss so effectually recom- 

1 iii, 40. 

? iii. 114 four times: x. 394, 395. Once (xi. 374) he has 6 dedr. dv@p. 
ovpavios éf ovpavod. 

Esl Aap Coy * Ap. Thdt. v. 1135. 

8 4p. Galland. viii. 626, 627. 

* i, 222 (where for dv@p, he reads ’Aday), 563. Also ii, 120, 346. 

‘ Adversus Manichaeos,’—a/. Mai, iv. 68, 69. 
ii. 228 :—obx Gre 5 dvOpwros, Hror 7d GvOpwmvoy mpdoArnupa, ef ovpavod jy, 
as 6 appwy ’Arodrvdpios éAnpet. 

® Naz. ii. 87 (= Thdt. iv. 62), 168.—Nyss. ii. 11. 

© Ap. Epiphan. i. 830. 

# ii. 559 (with the Text. Recept.): iv. 302 not. 

1? Hippolytus may not be cited in evidence, being read both ways. (Cp. ed. 
Fabr. ii. 30:—ed. Lagarde, 138. 15 :—ed. Galland. ii. 483.)—Neither may the 

expression Tod Sevrépov ef odpavod dvOpuov in Pet. Alex. (ed. Routh, Rell. 
Sacr. iv. 48) be safely pressed. 


bn eae Na ee 


mended itself to Western Christendom, that having been 
adopted by Ambrose!, by Jerome? (and later by Augus- 
tine *,) it established itself in the Vulgate *, and is found 
in all the later Latin writers®. Thus then, a ¢hird rival 
reading enters the field,—which because it has well- 
nigh disappeared from Greek MSS., no longer finds an 
advocate. Our choice lies therefore between the two 
former :—viz. (a) the received, which is the only well- 
attested reading of the place: and (4) the maimed text 
of the Old Latin, which Jerome deliberately rejected (A. D. 
380), and for which he substituted another even worse 
attested reading. (Note, that these two Western fabrica- 
tions effectually dispose of one another.) It should be 
added that Athanasius ® lends his countenance to all the 
three readings. 

But now, let me ask,—Will any one be disposed, after 
a careful survey of the premisses, to accept the verdict of 
Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest, who are for bringing the 
Church back to the maimed text of which I began by giving 
the history and explaining the origin? Let it be noted 
that the one question is,—shall 6 Kvpuos be retained in the 

1 Primus homo de terra, terrenus: secundus homo de caelo caelestis.—i. 1168, 
1363: ii. 265, 975. And so ps.-Ambr. ii. 166, 437. 

2 ii. 298: iv. 930: vii. 296. 

8 The places are given by Sabatier 27 Joc. 

* Only because it is the Vulgate reading, I am persuaded, does this reading 
appear in Orig. znéerp. ii. 84, 85: iii. 951: iv. 546. 

5 As Philastrius (af. Galland. vii. 492, 516).—Pacianus (ib. 275).— 
Marius Mercator (ib. viii. 664).—Capreolus (ib. ix. 493). But see the end 
of the next ensuing note. 

6 Vol. i. p. 1275,—5 Sedrepos dvOp. 5 Kipios & obpayod obpdvios :—on which 
he remarks, (if indeed it be he), iS0d yap duporépaber obpavios dvOpwmos dvopd- 
Cera. And lower down,—Kupios, 5d riv plav iméoracw* Sedr, pev avOp., Kara 
tiv &voperny dvOpwndrnta. éf odpavod 5é, kara Thy OedrnTa.—P. 448,—6 dev- 
repos dvOp. &¢ odpavod énovpdvios.—Ap. Montf. ii. 13 (=Galland. v. 167),—6 
der. dvOp. é€ obpavod.—Note that Maximinus, an Arian bishop, A.D. 427-8 
(ap. Augustin, viii. 663) is found to have possessed a text identical with the 
first of the preceding :—‘ Ait ipse Paulus, Primus homo Adam de terra terrenus, 
secundus homo Dominus de Caélo caelestis advenit.’ 


second clause, or not? But there it stood within thirty 
years of the death of St. John: and there it stands, at the 
end of eighteen centuries in every extant copy (including 
AKLP) except nine. It has been excellently witnessed to 
all down the ages,—viz. By Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, 
Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodotus, Eutherius, Theodore 
Mops., Damascene and others. On what principle would 
you now reject it? . . . With critics who assume that a 
reading found in NBCDEFG must needs be genuine,—it 
is vain to argue. And yet the most robust faith ought to 
be effectually shaken by the discovery that four, if not five 
(NACFG) of these same MSS., by reading ‘we shall all 
sleep ; but we shall not all be changed,’ contradict St. Paul’s 
solemn announcement in ver. 51: while a sixth (D) stands 
alone in substituting ‘we shall all rise; but we shall not 
all be changed. —In this very verse, C is for introducing 
"Addu into the first clause of the sentence: FG, for sub- 
joining 6 ovparios. When will men believe that guides like 
these are to be entertained with habitual distrust? to 
be listened to with the greatest caution? to be followed, 
for their own sakes,—never ? 

I have been the fuller on this place, because it affords 
an instructive example of what has occasionally befallen 
the words of Scripture. Very seldom indeed are we able to 
handle a text in this way. Only when the heretics assailed, 
did the orthodox defend: whereby it came to pass that 
a record was preserved of how the text was read by the 
ancient Father. The attentive reader will note (2) That 
all the changes which we have been considering belong to 
the earliest age of all:—(4) That the corrupt reading is 
retained by NBC and their following: the genuine text, 
in the great bulk of the copies :—({c) That the first mention 
of the text is found in the writings of an early heretic :-— 
(Zz) That [the orthodox introduced a change in the in- 
terests, as they fancied, of truth, but from utter misap- 


prehension of the nature and authority of the Word of 
God:—and (e) that under the Divine Providence that 
change was so effectually thrown out, that decisive witness 
is found on the other side]. 

§ 4. 

Closely allied to the foregoing, and constantly referred 
to in connexion with it by those Fathers who undertook 
to refute the heresy of Apolinarius, is our LORD’s declara- 
tion to Nicodemus,—‘ No man hath ascended up to heaven, 
but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man 
which is in heaven’ (St. John iii. 13). CHRIST ‘came 
down from heaven’ when He became incarnate: and 
having become incarnate, is said to have ‘ascended up to 
Heaven,’ and ‘to be in Heaven,’ because ‘ the Son of Man, 
who was not in heaven before, by virtue of the hypostatical 
union was thenceforward evermore ‘in heaven.’ But the 
Evangelist’s language was very differently taken by those 
heretics who systematically ‘maimed and misinterpreted 
that which belongeth to the human nature of CHRIST.’ 
Apolinarius, who relied on the present place, is found 
to have read it without the final clause (6 av év T@ otpare) ; 
and certain of the orthodox (as Greg. Naz., Greg. Nyssa, 
Epiphanius, while contending with him,) shew them- 
selves not unwilling to argue from the text so mutilated, 
Origen and the author of the Dialogus once, Eusebius 
twice, Cyril not fewer than nineteen times, also leave off 
at the words ‘even the Son of Man’: from which it is 
insecurely gathered that those Fathers disallowed the 
clause which follows. On the other hand, thirty-eight 
Fathers and ten Versions maintain the genuineness of the 
words 6 dy & 76 odpavg. But the decisive circumstance 
is that,—besides the Syriac and the Latin copies which 

1 See Revision Revised, pp. 132-5: and The Traditional Text, p. 114. 

all witness to the existence of the clause,—the whole body 
of the uncials, four only excepted (NBLT*), and every 
known cursive but one (33)—are for retaining it. . & 
No thoughtful reader will rise from a discussion like the _ 
foregoing without inferring from the facts which have — 
emerged in the course of it the exceeding antiquity of 
depravations of the inspired verity. For let me not be 
supposed to have asserted that the present depravation was 
the work of Apolinarius. Like the rest, it is probably 
older by at least 150 years. Apolinarius, in whose person 
the heresy which bears his name came to a head, did but = |} 
inherit the tenets of his predecessors in error; and these — 
had already in various ways resulted in the corruption of 
the deposit. 

ST acai, aie 
7. nm 1 


The matter in hand will be conveniently illustrated by : 
inviting the reader’s attention to another famous place. c 

ie wi 

There is a singular consent among the Critics for eliminating 
from St. Luke ix. 54-6, twenty-four words which embody 
two memorable sayings of the Son of Man. The entire = | 4** 
context is as follows: —‘ Lord, wilt thou that we command  — =" 
fire to come down from heaven and consume them, (as x 
Elias did)? But he turned, and rebuked them, (and said, | & 
Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.) (For the 7) ™ 
Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save =) 
them.) And they went to another village.’ The three 
bracketed clauses contain the twenty-four words in ; 

The first of these clauses (s xal ‘HAias émoince), which 
claims to be part of the inquiry of St. John and St. James, 
Mill rejected as an obvious interpolation. ‘Res ipsa clamat. 

* This paper is marked as having been written at Chichester in 1877, and is 
therefore earlier than the Dean’s later series. 

<item Nl SR 


_ fetained it as probably genuine.—The second clause (kat 
€ eizer, Oix ofdare olov zvevuards éore tyeis) he obelized as 

probably not genuine :—the third (6 yap vids rod avOpdzov 
ovx HAGE Wuyas avOpdézwr arodoa, GAAG oGoau) he rejected 
entirely. Lachmann also retains the first clause, but 
rejects the other two. Alford, not without misgiving, 
does the same. Westcott and Hort, without any mis- 
giving about the third clause, are ‘morally certain’ that 
the first and second clauses are a Western interpolation. 
Tischendorf and Tregelles are thorough. They agree, and 
the Revisers of 1881, in rejecting unceremoniously all the 
three clauses and exhibiting the place curtly, thus.— 
Kipie, Oédcis eizwper stip xaraSivat axd Tod ovpavod, xat 
GvahGcat aitovs ; otpadels Se éxeriunoer atrois. Kai éxoped- 
Oncav els ér€pay x@pnr. 

Now it may as well be declared at once that Codd. 
NBLE | g! Cyr'™?, two MSS. of the Bohairic (d 3, d 2), the 
Lewis, and two cursives (71, 157) are literally the only 
authority, ancient or modern, for so exhibiting the text 
[in all its bare crudeness]. Against them are arrayed 
the whole body of MSS. uncial and cursive, including 
ACD;; every known lectionary ; all the Latin, the Syriac 
(Cur. om. Clause 1), and indeed every other known 
version: besides seven good Greek Fathers beginning 

1 Proleg. 418. 

? The text of St. Luke ix. 51-6 prefixed to Cyril’s fifty-sixth Sermon (p. 253) 
is the text of B and %,—an important testimony to what I suppose may be 
regarded as the Alexandrine Zextus Receptus of this place in the fifth century. 
But then no one supposes that Cyril is individually responsible for the headings 
of his Sermons. We therefore refer to the body of his discourse; and discover 
that the Syriac translator has rendered it (as usual) with exceeding licence. He 
has omitted to render some such words as the following which certainly stood 
in the original text :—edéva: yap xpq, Sr ds phrw Tis véas xexpaTnxores 
XGpiros, GAA” Ex: ris mporépas exdpevor cvvnGeias, Todro «lwov, mpds "HAiav 
Ghopavres tov vp) waragAdgayra bis Tos mevrqKovra Kal rods tryoupévous 
abray. (Cramer's Cat. ii. p. 81. Cf. Corderii, Cat. p. 263. Also Matthaei. 

N. T. in loc., pp. 223-4.) Now the man who wrote ¢hat, must surely have 
read St. Luke ix. 54, 55 as we do. 

Il. Q 


all witness to the existence of the clause,—the whole body 
of the uncials, four only excepted (NBLT®), and every 
known cursive but one (33)—are for retaining it. 

No thoughtful reader will rise from a discussion like the 
foregoing without inferring from the facts which have 
emerged in the course of it the exceeding antiquity of 
depravations of the inspired verity. For let me not be 
supposed to have asserted that the present depravation was 
the work of Apolinarius. Like the rest, it is probably 
older by at least 150 years. Apolinarius, in whose person 
the heresy which bears his name came to a head, did but 
inherit the tenets of his predecessors in error; and these 
had already in various ways resulted in the corruption of 
the deposit. 


The matter in hand will be conveniently illustrated by 
inviting the reader’s attention to another famous place. 
There is a singular consent among the Critics for eliminating 
from St. Luke ix. 54-6, twenty-four words which embody 
two memorable sayings of the Son of Man. The entire 
context is as follows: —‘ Lord, wilt thou that we command 
fire to come down from heaven and consume them, (as 
Elias did)? But he turned, and rebuked them, (and said, 
Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.) (For the 
Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save 
them.) And they went to another village.’ The three 
bracketed clauses contain the twenty-four words in 

The first of these clauses (s xal “HAfas ézoince), which 
claims to be part of the inquiry of St. John and St. James, 
Mill rejected as an obvious interpolation. ‘Res ipsa clamat. 

* This paper is marked as having been written at Chichester in 1877, and is 
therefore earlier than the Dean’s later series. 


Quis enim sanus tam insignia deleverit!?’ Griesbach 
retained it as probably genuine——The second clause (kat 
eizev, Odx oldare olov mvedpards éore speis) he obelized as 
probably not genuine :—the third (6 yap vids rod avOpdzov 
ovK HAGE Woxas avOpdrwv amodréoa, GAN cGca) he rejected 
entirely. Lachmann also retains the first clause, but 
rejects the other two. Alford, not without misgiving, 
does the same. Westcott and Hort, without any mis- 
giving about the third clause, are ‘morally certain’ that 
the first and second clauses are a Western interpolation. 
Tischendorf and Tregelles are thorough. They agree, and 
the Revisers of 1881, in rejecting unceremoniously all the 
three clauses and exhibiting the place curtly, thus.— 
Kupte, Oéders elmwpev tip xataBjvat and Tod ovpavod, kat 
avadGcat adtods ; otpadels 8 exetiunoev adrois. Kal émoped- 
Onoav els Erépay Kopnv. 

Now it may as well be declared at once that Codd. 
NBLE | g! Cyr'**?, two MSS. of the Bohairic (d 3, d 2), the 
Lewis, and two cursives (71, 157) are literally the only 
authority, ancient or modern, for so exhibiting the text 
[in all its bare crudeness]. Against them are arrayed 
the whole body of MSS. uncial and cursive, including 
ACD; every known lectionary ; all the Latin, the Syriac 
(Cur. om. Clause 1), and indeed every other known 
version: besides seven good Greek Fathers beginning 

1 Proleg. 418. 

* The text of St. Luke ix. 51-6 prefixed to Cyril’s fifty-sixth Sermon (p. 253) 
is the text of B and N,—an important testimony to what I suppose may be 
regarded as the Alexandrine 7extus Receptus of this place in the fifth century. 
But then no one supposes that Cyril is individually responsible for the headings 
of his Sermons. We therefore refer to the body of his discourse ; and discover 
that the Syriac translator has rendered it (as usual) with exceeding licence. He 
has omitted to render some such words as the following which certainly stood 
in the original text :—eldéva: yap xph, Ort ds phrw Tis véas Kexparnkdres 
xdpiros, ddd’ Er ris mporépas exdpevor cvvybeias, Todro elroy, mpds "HAtav 
GdhopGvtes rv mupt Karapdégavra Sis rods mevrqKovTa Kai Tods tyyounévous 
airy. (Cramer’s Cat. ii. p. 81. Cf. Corderii, Cat. p. 263. Also Matthaei, 
N. T. i loc., pp. 223-4.) Now the man who wrote ¢/a¢, must surely have 
read St. Luke ix. 54, 55 as we do. 

Il. Q 


with Clemens Alex. (A.D. 190), and five Latin Fathers 
beginning with Tertullian (A.D. 190): Cyprian’s testi- 
mony being in fact the voice of the Fourth Council of 
Carthage, A.D. 253. If ona survey of this body of evidence 
any one will gravely tell me that the preponderance of 
authority still seems to him to be in favour of the shorter 
reason, I can but suggest that the sooner he communicates 
to the world the grounds for his opinion, the better. 

(1) In the meantime it becomes necessary to consider 
the disputed clauses separately, because ancient authori- 
ties, rivalling modern critics, are unable to agree as to 
which they will reject, which they. will retain. I begin with 
the second. What persuades so many critics to omit the 
precious words kat ¢eizev, Ovx oldare ofov mvedpatds éore 
duets, is the discovery that these words are absent from 
many uncial MSS..—NABC and nine others; besides, as 
might have been confidently anticipated from that fact, 
also from a fair proportion of the cursive copies. It is 
impossible to deny that prima facie such an amount of 
evidence against any words of Scripture is exceedingly 
weighty. Pseudo-Basil (ii. 271) is found to have read the 
passage in the same curt way. Cyril, on the other hand, 
seems to have read it differently. 

And yet, the entire aspect of the case becomes changed 
the instant it is perceived that this disputed clause is recog- 
nized by Clemens? (A.D. 190); as well as by the Old Latin, 
by the Peshitto, and by the Curetonian Syriac: for the fact 
is thus established that as well in Eastern as in Western 
Christendom the words under discussion were actually 
recognized as genuine full a hundred and fifty years before 
the oldest of the extant uncials came into existence. 
When it is further found that (besides Ambrose, Jerome, 
Augustine,) the Vulgate, the Old Egyptian, the Harkleian 

* See the fragment (and Potter’s note), Opp. p. 1019: also Galland. ii. 157. 
First in Hippolyt., Opp. ed. Fabric. ii. 71. 

eens aimee ae Kia tee a Ae 

ect 4 


Syriac and the Gothic versions also contain the words in 
question; and especially that Chrysostom in four places, 
Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril and Theodoret, besides 
Antiochus, familiarly quote them, it is evident that the 
testimony of antiquity in their favour is even overwhelming. 
Add that in eight uncial MSS. (beginning with D) the 
words in dispute form part of the text of St. Luke, and 
that they are recognized by the great mass of the cursive 
copies,—(only six out of the twenty which Scrivener has 
collated being without them,)—and it is plain that at least 
five tests of genuineness have been fully satisfied. 

(2) The third clause (6 yap vids rod dvOpdzov ovdx HAGE 
Woxas avOpeTwv arod€cat, GAXA Goat) rests on precisely the 
same solid evidence as the second; except that the testi- 
mony of Clemens is no longer available,—but only because 
his quotation does not extend so far. Cod. D also omits 
this third clause; which on the other hand is upheld by 
Tertullian, Cyprian and Ambrose. Tischendorf suggests 
that it has surreptitiously found its way into the text from 
St. Luke xix. 10, or St. Matt. xviii. 11. But this is impos- 
sible; simply because what is found in those two places is 
essentially different: namely,— Ade ydp 6 vids rod avOpadzov 

l g6oat TO ATOAWAds. 

Cntjoat Kai 

(3) We are at liberty in the meantime to note how apt 
an illustration is here afforded of the amount of consensus 
which subsists between documents of the oldest class. This 
divergence becomes most conspicuous when we direct our 
attention to the grounds for omitting the foremost clause 
of the three, és cal "HAlas éxoincev: for here we make the 
notable discovery that the evidence is not only less weighty, 
but also different. Codexes B and N are now forsaken by 
all their former allies except LZ and a single cursive copy. 
True, they are supported by the Curetonian Syriac, the 
Vulgate and two copies of the Old Latin. But this time 

1 In St. Matt. xviii. 11, the words (yrfjoa: «ai do not occur. 



they find themselves confronted by Codexes ACD with 
thirteen other uncials and the whole body of the cursives ; 
the Peshitto, Coptic, Gothic, and Harkleian versions; by 
Clemens, Jerome, Chrysostom, Cyril and pseudo-Basil. In 
respect of antiquity, variety, respectability, numbers, they 
are therefore hopelessly outvoted. 

Do any inquire, How then has all this contradiction and 
depravation of Codexes NABC(D) come about? I answer 
as follows :— 

It was a favourite tenet with the Gnostic heretics that 
the Law and the Gospel are at variance. In order to 
establish this, Marcion (in a work called Antitheses) set 
passages of the New Testament against passages of the 
Old; from the seeming disagreement between which his 
followers were taught to infer that the Law and the Gospel 
cannot have proceeded from one and the same author '. 
Now here was a place exactly suited to his purpose. The 
God of the Old Testament had twice sent down fire from 
heaven to consume fifty men. But ‘the Son of Man,’ said 
our Saviour, when invited to do the like, ‘came not to 
destroy men’s lives but to save them.’ Accordingly, 
Tertullian in his fourth book against Marcion, refuting 
this teaching, acquaints us that one of Marcion’s ‘Con- 
trasts’ was Elijah’s severity in calling down fire from 
Heaven,—and the gentleness of CHRIST. ‘I acknowledge 
the severity of the judge,’ Tertullian replies; ‘but I recog- 
nize the same severity on the part of CHRIST towards His 
Disciples when they proposed to bring down a similar 
calamity on a Samaritan village*. From all of which it 

+ Bp. Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 468. ‘Agnosco iudicis severitatem. E contrario 
Christi ineandem animadversionem destinantes discipulos super illum viculum 
Samaritarum.’ Mare. iv. 23 (see ii. p. 221). He adds,—‘ Let Marcion also 
confess that by the same terribly severe judge Christ’s leniency was foretold ;’ 
and he cites in proof Is. xlii. 2 and 1 Kings xix. 12 (‘ sed in sfiri/u miti’). 

? Augustine (viii. 111-150, 151-182) writes a book against him. And he 

discusses St. Luke ix. 54-5 on p. 139. 
Addas Adimantus (a disciple of Manes) was the author of a work of the 


is plain that within seventy years of the time when the 
Gospel was published, the text of St. Luke ix. 54-6 stood 
very much as at present. 

But then it is further discovered that at the same remote 
period (about A.D. 130) this place of Scripture was much 
fastened on by the enemies of the Gospel. The Manichaean 
heretics pressed believers with it. The disciples’ appeal 
to the example of Elijah, and the reproof they incurred, 
became inconvenient facts. The consequence might be 
foreseen. With commendable solicitude for GoD’s honour, 
but through mistaken piety, certain of the orthodox (with- 
out suspicion of the evil they were committing) were so 
ill-advised as to erase from their copies the twenty-four 
words which had been turned to mischievous account as 
well as to cause copies to be made of the books so 
mutilated: and behold, at the end of 1,700 years, the 
calamitous result ! 

Of these three clauses then, which are closely inter- 
dependent, and as Tischendorf admits? must all three stand 
or all three fall together, the first is found with ACD, the Old 
Latin, Peshitto, Clement, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome,—not 
with NB the Vulgate or Curetonian. The second and third 
clauses are found with Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Hark- 
leian, six Greek and five Latin Fathers,—not with NABCD. 
same kind. Augustine (viii. 606 c) says of it,—‘ ubi de utroque Testamento 
velut inter se contraria testimonia proferuntur versipelli dolositate, velut inde 
ostendatur utrumque ab uno Deo esse non posse, sed alterum ab altero.’ Cerdon 
was the first to promulgate this pestilential tenet (605 a). Then Marcion 
his pupil, then Apelles, and then Patricius. 

1 Titus Bostr. adv. Manichaeos (af. Galland. v. 329 b), leaving others to 
note the correspondences between the New and the Old Testament, proposes to 
handle the ‘Contrasts’: mpds airas ras dvriBéces TaY Aoyiow xwpnowpev. At 
PP. 339 e, 340 a, b, he confirms what Tertullian says about the calling down of 
fire from heaven. : : 

2 Verba ds nal ’H. émoinae cur quis addiderit, planum. Eidem interpolatori 
debentur quae verba orp. 5% émeri. adrois excipiunt. Gravissimum est quod 
testium additamentum 6 ydp vids, &c. ab eadem manu derivandum est, nec per 

se solum pro spurio haberi potest; cohaeret enim cum argumento tum auctori- 
tate arctissime cum prioribus. (N. T. ed. 1869, p. 544-) 


While 8 and B are alone in refusing to recognize either 
first, second or third clause. And this is a fair sample of 
that ‘singular agreement’ which is sometimes said to 
subsist between ‘the lesser group of witnesses.’ Is it not 
plain on the contrary that at a very remote period there 
existed a fierce conflict, and consequent hopeless divergence 
of testimony about the present passage; of which 1,700 
years! have failed to obliterate the traces? Had NB been 
our only ancient guides, it might of course have been con- 
tended that there has been no act of spoliation committed : 
but seeing that one half of the missing treasure is found 
with their allies, ACD, Clement Alex., Chrysostom, Cyril, 
Jerome,—the other half with their allies, Old Latin, 
Harkleian, Clement, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Didymus, 
Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Jerome, Augus- 
tine *,—it is clear that no such pretence can any longer be 
set up. 

* Secundo iam saeculo quin in codicibus omnis haec interpolatio circumferri 
consueverit, dubitari nequit. (Ibid.) 

? The following are the references left by the Dean. I have not had time or 
strength to search out those which are left unspecified in this MS. and the 

Jerome.—Apostoli in Lege versati ... ulcisci nituntur iniuriam, e¢ imitari 
Eliam, &c. Dominus, qui non ad iudicandum venerat, sed ad salvandum, &c. 
...increpat eos guod non meminerint doctrinae suae et bonitatis Evangelicae, 
Ce Gs SS 7b: 6:/0:) 

Cyprian, Synodical Epistle.—‘ Filius hominis non venit animas hominum 
perdere, sed salvare.’ p. 98. A.D. 253. 

Tatian.—Veni, inquit, animam salvam facere. (Carn. c. 12 et Io: and 
Anim. c, 13.) 

Augustine gives a long extract from the same letter and thus quotes the 
words twice,—x. 76, 482. Cp. ii. 593 a. 

Kai 6 Kijpios mpds rods droarddous cindytas év mupt KoAdoat Tovs pr) Sefapévous 
abtods Kata tov "HAiav’ Ovix oidate pyot moiov mvedpards tore. (p. 1019.) 

Theodoret, iii. 1119. (srotov.) 

Epiph. ii. 31. (otov.) 

Basil, ii. 271 (Eth.) quotes the whole place. 

Augustine.—Respondit eis Dominus, dicens eos nescire cuius spiritus filii 
essent, et quod ipse liberare venisset, non perdere. viii. 139 b. Cp. iii. (2), 
194 b. 

Cyril Al.—Mfrw ris véas Kexparnedres xapitos ... TodTo eimov, Tov ’HAiay 
dpupOvres Tov mupi «.7.A, Cord. Cat. 263=Cram. Cat. 81. Also iv. 1017.— 


The endeavour to establish agreement among the wit- 
nesses by a skilful distribution or rather dislocation of 
their evidence, a favourite device with the Critics, involves 
a fallacy which in any other subject would be denied a place. 
I trust that henceforth St. Luke ix. 54-6 will be left in 
undisputed possession of its place in the sacred Text,—to 
which it has an undoubted right. 

A thoughtful person may still inquire, Can it however be 
explained further how it has come to pass that the evidence 
for omitting the first clause and the two last is so unequally 
divided? I answer, the disparity is due to the influence of 
the Lectionaries. 

Let it be observed then that an ancient Ecclesiastical 
Lection which used to begin either at St. Luke ix. 44, or 
else at verse 49 and to extend down to the end of verse 561, 
ended thus,—és xal ’HAias énolnoe; otpadels dé émetiunoev 
abtois. xal émopevOnoay els érépay kbunv*. It was the Lection 
for Thursday in the fifth week of the new year; and as the 
reader sees, it omitted the two last clauses exactly as 
Codd. NABC do. Another Ecclesiastical Lection began 
at verse 51 and extended down to verse 57, and is found to 
have contained the two last clauses*. I wish therefore 
to inquire:—May it not fairly be presumed that it is the 
Lectionary practice of the primitive age which has led to 
the irregularity in this perturbation of the sacred Text? 

By a strange slip of memory, Cyril sets down a reproof found in St. Matthew; 
but this is enough to shew that he admits that some reproof finds record in the 

Chrys. vii. 567 e: x. 305 d: vii. 346 a: ix. 677 ¢. 

Opus Imp. ag. Chrys. vi. 211, 219. 

Didymus.—Od« oidare olov mvedparés éorw 6 vids Tod dvOpmmov. De Trin. 
p. 188. 

1 Evst. 48 (Matthaei’s c): Evst. 150 (Harl. 5598). 

2 See Matthaei, N. T. 1786, vol. ii. p. 17. 

8 [I have been unable to discover this Lection.] 



I HAVE purposely reserved for the last the most difficult 
problem of all: viz. those twelve famous verses of 
St. John’s Gospel (chap. vii. 53 to viii. 11) which contain 
the history of ‘the woman taken in adultery, —the pericope 
de adultera, as it is called. Altogether indispensable is it 
that the reader should approach this portion of the Gospel 
with the greatest amount of experience and the largest 
preparation. Convenient would it be, no doubt, if he 
could further divest himself of prejudice; but that is 
perhaps impossible. Let him at least endeavour to weigh 
the evidence which shall now be laid before him in 
impartial scales. He must do so perforce, if he would 
judge rightly: for the matter to be discussed is confessedly 
very peculiar: in some respects, even unique. Let me 
convince him at once of the truth of what has been so far 

It is a singular circumstance that at the end of eighteen 
centuries two instances, and but two, should exist of a con- 
siderable portion of Scripture left to the mercy, so to 
speak, of ‘ Textual Criticism.’ Twelve consecutive Verses 
in the second Gospel—as many consecutive Verses in the 
fourth—are in this predicament. It is singular, I say, 
that the Providence which has watched so marvellously 
over the fortunes of the, Deposit,—the Divine Wisdom 


which has made such ample provision for its security all 
down the ages, should have so ordered the matter, that 
these two co-extensive problems have survived to our 
times to be tests of human sagacity,—trials of human 
faithfulness and skill. They present some striking features 
of correspondence, but far more of contrast,—as will 
presently appear. And yet the most important circum- 
stance of all cannot be too soon mentioned: viz. that 
both alike have experienced the same calamitous treatment 
at the hands of some critics. By common consent the 
most recent editors deny that either set of Verses can 
have formed part of the Gospel as it proceeded from the 
hands of its inspired author. How mistaken is this 
opinion of theirs in respect of the ‘Last twelve verses 
of the Gospel according to St. Mark,’ has been already 
demonstrated in a separate treatise. I must be content 
in this place to deal in a far less ceremonious manner with 
the hostile verdict of many critics concerning St. John 
Vii. 53-viii. 11. That I shall be able to satisfy those 
persons who profess themselves unconvinced by what was 
offered concerning St. Mark’s last twelve verses, I am not 
so simple as to expect. But I trust that I shall have with 
me all candid readers who are capable of weighing evidence 
impartially, and understanding the nature of logical proof, 
when it is fully drawn out before them,—which indeed is 
the very qualification that I require of them. 

And first, the case of the pericope de adultera requires 
to be placed before the reader in its true bearings. For 
those who have hitherto discussed it are observed to have 
ignored certain preliminary considerations which, once 
clearly apprehended, are all but decisive of the point at 
issue. There is a fundamental obstacle, I mean, in the 
way of any attempt to dislodge this portion of the sacred 
narrative from the context in which it stands, which they 
seem to have overlooked. I proceed to explain. 


Sufficient prominence has never yet been given to the 
fact that in the present discussion the burden of proof 
rests entirely with those who challenge the genuineness 
of the Pericope under review. In other words, the question 
before us is not by any means,—Shall these Twelve Verses 
be admitted—or, Must they be refused admission—into the 
Sacred Text? That point has been settled long, long ago. 
St. John’s Twelve verses are in possession. Let those 
eject them who can. They are known to have occupied 
their present position for full seventeen hundred years. 
There never was a time—as far as is known—when they 

were not where,—and to all intents and purposes what— 
they now are. Is it not evident, that no merely ordinary 
method of proof,—no merely common argument,—will 
avail to dislodge Twelve such Verses as these? 

‘Twelve such Verses, I say. For it is the extent of 
the subject-matter which makes the case so formidable. 
We have here to do with no dubious clause, concerning 
which ancient testimony is divided; no seeming gloss, 
which is suspected to have overstepped its proper limits, 
and to have crept in as from the margin; no importation 
from another Gospel ; no verse of Scripture which has lost 
its way ; no weak amplification of the Evangelical meaning ; 
no tasteless appendix, which encumbers the narrative and 
almost condemns itself. Nothing of the sort. If it were 
some inconsiderable portion of Scripture which it was 
proposed to get rid of by shewing that it is disallowed 
by a vast amount of ancient evidence, the proceeding 
would be intelligible. But I take leave to point out that 
a highly complex and very important incident—as related 
in twelve consecutive verses of the Gospel—cannot be so 
dealt with. Squatters on the waste are liable at any 
moment to be served with a notice of ejectment: but the 
owner of a mansion surrounded by broad acres which his 
ancestors are known to have owned before the Heptarchy, 


may on no account be dispossessed by any such summary 
process. This—to speak without a figure—is a connected 
and very striking portion of the sacred narrative:—the 
description of a considerable incident, complete in itself, full 
of serious teaching, and of a kind which no one would have 
ever dared to invent. Those who would assail it success- 
fully must come forward with weapons of a very different 
kind from those usually employed in textual warfare. 

It shall be presently shewn that these Twelve Verses 
hold their actual place by a more extraordinary right of 
tenure than any other twelve verses which can be named 
in the Gospel: but it would be premature to enter upon 
the proof of that circumstance now. I prefer to invite the 
reader’s attention, next to the actual texture of the pericope 
de adultera, by which name (as already explained) the 
last verse of St. John vii. together with verses 1-11 of ch. 
viii. are familiarly designated. Although external testimony 
supplies the sole proof of genuineness, it is nevertheless 
reasonable to inquire what the verses in question may have 
to say for themselves. Do they carry on their front the 
tokens of that baseness of origin which their impugners so 
confidently seek to fasten upon them? Or do they, on 
the contrary, unmistakably bear the impress of Truth? 

The first thing which strikes me in them is that the 

actual narrative concerning ‘ the woman taken in adultery’ 
is entirely contained in the last nine of these verses: being 
preceded by two short paragraphs of an entirely different 
character and complexion. Let these be first produced 
and studied : 
‘and every man went to his own house: but Jesus went to the 
Mount of Olives’ ‘And again, very early in the morning, He 
presented Himself in the Temple; and all the people came unto 
Him: and He sat down and taught them.’ 

Now as every one must see, the former of these two 
paragraphs is unmistakably not the beginning but the end 


of a narrative. It purports to be the conclusion of some- 
thing which went before, not to introduce something which 
comes after. Without any sort of doubt, it is St. John’s 
account of what occurred at the close of the debate between 
certain members of the Sanhedrin which terminates his 
history of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. The 
verse in question marks the conclusion of the Feast,— 
implies in short that all is already finished. Remove it, 
and the antecedent narrative ends abruptly. Retain it, and 
all proceeds methodically ; while an affecting contrast is 
established, which is recognized to be strictly in the 
manner of Scripture’. Each one had gone to his home: 
but the homeless One had repaired to the Mount of Olives. 
In other words, the paragraph under discussion is found 
to be an integral part of the immediately antecedent nar- 
rative: proves to be a fragment of what is universally 
admitted to be genuine Scripture. By consequence, itself 
must needs be genuine also ?. 

It is vain for any one to remind us that these two verses 
are in the same predicament as those which follow: are as 
ill supported by MS. evidence as the other ten: and must 
therefore share the same fate as the rest. The statement 
is incorrect, to begin with; as shall presently be shewn. 
But, what is even better deserving of attention, since con- 
fessedly these twelve verses are either to stand or else to 
fall together, it must be candidly admitted that whatever 
begets a suspicion that certain of them, at all events, must 

1 Compare 1 Sam. xxiv. 22:—‘ And Saul went home: but David and his 
men gat them up into the hold. 1 Kings xviii. 42 :—‘So Ahab went up to eat 
and to drink: and Elijah went up to the top of Carmel, and he cast himself 
down upon the earth, and put his face between his knees. Esther iii. 15 :— 
‘And the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Shushan was 
perplexed. Such are the idioms of the Bible. 

? Ammonius (Cord. Cat. p. 216), with evident reference to it, remarks that 
our Lorp’s words in verses 37 and 38 were intended as a véaticum which all 
might take home with them, at the close of this, ‘ the last, the great day of 
the feast.’ 


needs be genuine, throws real doubt on the justice of the 
sentence of condemnation which has been passed in a lump 
upon all the rest. 

I proceed to call attention to another inconvenient 
circumstance which some Critics in their eagerness have 

The reader will bear in mind that—contending, as I do, 
that the entire Pericope under discussion is genuine 
Scripture which has been forcibly wrenched away from its 
lawful context,—I began by examining the upper ex- 
tremity, with a view to ascertaining whether it bore any 
traces of being a fractured edge. The result is just what 
might have been anticipated. The first two of the verses 
which it is the fashion to brand with ignominy were found 
to carry on their front clear evidence that they are genuine 
Scripture. How then about the other extremity ? 

Note, that in the oracular Codexes B and N immediate 
transition is made from the words ‘ out of Galilee ariseth 
no prophet,’ in ch. vii. 52, to the words ‘Again therefore 
JESUS spake unto them, saying, in ch. viii. 12. And we 
are invited by all the adverse Critics alike to believe 
that so the place stood in the inspired autograph of the 

But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is 
contained between ch. vii. 37 and 52, and note—(a) That 
two hostile parties crowded the Temple courts (ver. 40-42) : 
(4) That some were for laying violent hands on our LORD 
(ver. 44): (c) That the Sanhedrin, being assembled in 
debate, were reproaching their servants for not having 
brought Him prisoner, and disputing one against another * 
(ver. 45-52). How can the Evangelist have proceeded,— 

1 So Eusebius :—’Ore xara 7d aird ovvaxdévtes of Tav “Iovdalav eOvous 
Gpxovres emt ris ‘Iepovoadnu, ovvedpov erorhoavro Kal onepw Sms avbtov 
dmorécwow? & & of piv Odvarov abtod KateynpioavTo: Erepor Se dvTéAeyov, ds 
6 Nixddnpos, «.7.A. (in Psalmos, p. 230 a). 


‘ Again therefore JESUS spake unto them, saying, I am the 
light of the world’? What is it supposed then that 
St. John meant when he wrote such words ? 

But on the contrary, survey the context in any ordinary 
copy of the New Testament, and his meaning is perfectly 
clear. The last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles is 
ended. It is the morrow and ‘very early in the morning.’ 
The Holy One has ‘ again presented Himself in the Temple’ 
where on the previous night He so narrowly escaped 
violence at the hands of His enemies, and He teaches the 
people. While thus engaged,—the time, the place, His 
own occupation suggesting thoughts of peace and holiness 
and love,—a rabble rout, headed by the Scribes and 
Pharisees, enter on the foulest of errands; and we all 
remember with how little success. Such an interruption 
need not have occupied much time. The Woman’s ac- 
cusers having departed, our SAVIOUR resumes His discourse 
which had been broken off. ‘Again therefore’ it is said 
in ver. 12, with clear and frequent reference to what had 
preceded in ver. 2—‘ JESUS spake unto them, saying, I am 
the light of the world.’ And had not that saying of His 
reference as well to the thick cloud of moral darkness 
which His words, a few moments before, had succeeded in 
dispelling, as to the orb of glory which already flooded the 
Temple Court with the effulgence of its rising——His own 
visible emblem and image in the Heavens? . . . I protest 
that with the incident of ‘the woman taken in adultery, — 
so introduced, so dismissed,—all is lucid and coherent: 
without those connecting links, the story is scarcely in- 
telligible. These twelve disputed verses, so far from 
‘fatally interrupting the course of St. John’s Gospel, if 
retained in the text !, prove to be even necessary for the 

1 Westcott and Hort’s prefatory matter (1870) to their revised Text of the 
New Testament, p. xxvii. 


logical coherency of the entire context in which they 

But even that is not all. On closeand careful inspection, 
the mysterious texture of the narrative, no less than its 
‘edifying and eminently Christian’ character, vindicates 
for the Pericope de adultera a right to its place in the 
Gospel. Let me endeavour to explain what seems to be 
its spiritual significancy: in other words, to interpret the 

The Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to our SAVIOUR 
on a charge of adultery. The sin prevailed to such an 
extent among the Jews that the Divine enactments con- 
cerning one so accused had long since fallen into practical 
oblivion. On the present occasion our LORD is observed 
to revive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto un- 
heard of fashion. The trial by the bitter water, or water 
of conviction!, was a species of ordeal, intended for the 
vindication of innocence, the conviction of guilt. But 
according to the traditional belief the test proved in- 
efficacious, unless the husband was himself innocent of the 
crime whereof he accused his wife. 

Let the provisions of the law, contained in Num. v. 16 
to 24, be now considered. The accused Woman having 
been brought near, and set before the LORD, the priest 
took ‘holy water in an earthen vessel,’ and put ‘of the dust 
of the floor of the tabernacle into the water.’ Then, with 
the bitter water that causeth the curse in his hand, he 
charged the woman by an oath. Next, he wrote the 
curses in a book and blotted them out with the bitter 
water; causing the woman to drink the bitter water that 
causeth the curse. Whereupon if she were guilty, she fell 
under a terrible penalty,—her body testifying visibly to 
her sin. If she was innocent, nothing followed. 

1 So in the LXX. See Num. vy. 11-31. 


And now, who sees not that the Holy One dealt with 
His hypocritical assailants, as if they had been the accused 
parties? Into the presence of incarnate JEHOVAH verily 
they had been brought: and perhaps when He stooped 
down and wrote upon the ground, it was a bitter sentence 
against the adulterer and adulteress which He wrote. We 
have but to assume some connexion between the curse 
which He thus traced ‘in the dust of the floor of the 
tabernacle’ and the words which He uttered with His lips, 
and He may with truth be declared to have ‘taken of the 
dust and put in on the water, and ‘caused them to drink 
of the bitter water which causeth the curse.’ For when, by 
His Holy Spirit, our great High Priest in His human flesh 
addressed these adulterers,—what did He but present them 
with living water! ‘in an earthen vessel?’? Did He not 
further charge them with an oath of cursing, saying, ‘If ye 
have not gone aside to uncleanness, be ye free from this 
bitter water: but if ye be defiled’—On being presented 
with which alternative, did they not, self-convicted, go out 
one by one? And what else was this but their own 
acquittal of the sinful woman, for whose condemnation 
they shewed themselves so impatient? Surely it was ‘the 
water of conviction’ (rd twp Tod éAeypwod) as it is six times 
called, which they had been compelled to drink; where- 
upon, ‘convicted (éAeyxéuevor) by their own conscience,’ as 
St. John relates, they had pronounced the other’s acquittal. 
Finally, note that by Himself declining to ‘condemn’ the 
accused woman, our LORD also did in effect blot out those 
curses which He had already written against her in the 
dust,—when He made the floor of the sanctuary His 

Whatever may be thought of the foregoing exposition— 
and I am not concerned to defend it in every detail,—on 

1 Ver. £7. So the LXX. 2 2 CoraAve 72. 1: 


turning to the opposite contention, we are struck with the 
slender amount of actual proof with which the assailants 
of this passage seem to be furnished. Their evidence is 
mostly negative—a proceeding which is constantly observed 
to attend a bad cause: and they are prone to make up for 
the feebleness of their facts by the strength of their asser- 
tions. But my experience, as one who has given a consider- 
able amount of attention to such subjects, tells me that 
the narrative before us carries on its front the impress of 
Divine origin. I venture to think that it vindicates for 
itself a high, unearthly meaning. It seems to me that it 
cannot be the work of a fabricator. The more I study 
it, the more I am impressed with its Divinity. And in 
what goes before I have been trying to make the reader 
a partaker of my own conviction. 

To come now to particulars, we may readily see from 
its very texture that it must needs have been woven in 
a heavenly loom. Only too obvious is the remark that 
the very subject-matter of the chief transaction recorded 
in these twelve verses, would be sufficient in and by itself 
to preclude the suspicion that these twelve verses are 
a spurious addition to the genuine Gospel. And then we 
note how entirely in St. John’s manner is the little ex- 
planatory clause in ver. 6,—‘ This they said, tempting Him, 
that they might have to accuse Him’ We are struck 
besides by the prominence given in verses 6 and 8 to the 
act of writing,—allusions to which, are met with in every 
work of the last Evangelist ®. It does not of course escape 
us how utterly beyond the reach of a Western interpolator 
would have been the insertion of the article so faithfully 

1 Compare ch. vi. 6, 71: vii. 39: xi. 13, 51: xii. 6, 33: xiii. 11, 28 : 
xxi. 19. i 

2 Consider ch. xix. 19, 20, 21, 22: XX. 30, 31: xxi. 24, 25.—I John i. 4: 
ii. 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 26: v. 13.—2 John 5, 12.—3 John 9, 13.—Rev, 
passim, especially i. 11, 19: ii, 1, &c.: x. 4: xiv, 13: xvii. 8: xix.g: xx. 12, 
I5: xxi, 5, 27: xxii. 18, 19. 

Its R 


retained to this hour before A{@ov in ver. 7. On complet- 
ing our survey, as to the assertions that the pericope de 
adultera ‘has no right to a place in the text of the four 
Gospels,’ —is ‘clearly a Western interpolation, though not 
Western of the earliest type,’ (whatever Lat may mean), 
and so forth,—we can but suspect that the authors very 
imperfectly realize the difficulty of the problem with which 
they have to deal. Dr. Hort finally assures us that ‘no 
accompanying marks would prevent’ this portion of Scrip- 
ture ‘from fatally interrupting the course of St. John’s 
Gospel if retained in the text’: and when they relegate 
it accordingly to a blank page at the end of the Gospels 
within ‘double brackets, in order ‘to shew its inferior 
authority’ ;—we can but read and wonder at the want of 
perception, not to speak of the coolness, which they display. 
Quousque tandem ? 

But it is time to turn from such considerations as the 
foregoing, and to inquire for the direct testimony, which is 
assumed by recent Editors and Critics to be fatal to these 
twelve verses. Tischendorf pronounces it ‘absolutely certain 
that this narrative was not written by St. John’ One, 
vastly his superior in judgement (Dr. Scrivener) declares 
that ‘on all intelligent principles of mere Criticism, the 
passage must needs be abandoned*.’ Tregelles is ‘fully 
satisfied that this narrative is not a genuine part of St. John’s 
Gospel *.’ Alford shuts it up in brackets, and like Tregelles 
puts it into his footnotes. Westcott and Hort, harsher 
than any of their predecessors, will not, as we have seen, 
allow it to appear even at the foot of the page. To 
reproduce all that has been written in disparagement of 
this precious portion of Gop’s written Word would be a . 
joyless and an unprofitable task. According to Green, ‘the 

' Westcott and Hort, ibid. pp. xxvii, xxvi. 

? Novum Testamentum, 1869, p. 829. 
§ Plain Introduction, 1894, ii. 364. * Printed Texts, 1854, p. 241. 


genuineness of the passage cannot be maintained!’ Ham- 
mond is of opinion that ‘it would be more satisfactory to 
separate it from its present context, and place it by itself 
as an appendix to the Gospel”.’ A yet more recent critic 
‘sums up, that ‘the external evidence must be held fatal to 
the genuineness of the passage *.’ The opinions of Bishops 
Wordsworth, Ellicott, and Lightfoot, shall be respectfully 
commented upon by-and-by. In the meantime, I venture 
to join issue with every one of these learned persons. I con- 
tend that on all intelligent principles of sound Criticism the 
passage before us must be maintained to be genuine Scrip- 
ture ; and that without a particle of doubt. I cannot even 
admit that ‘it has been transmitted to us under circum- 
stances widely different from those connected with any 
other passage of Scripture whatever*.’ I contend that it 
has been transmitted in precisely the same way as all the 
rest of Scripture, and therefore exhibits the same notes 
of genuineness as any other twelve verses of the same 
Gospel which can be named: but—like countless other 
places—it is found for whatever reason to have given 
offence in certain quarters: and in consequence has experi- 
enced very ill usage at the hands of the ancients and of 
the moderns also :—but especially of the latter. In other 
words, these twelve verses exhibit the required notes of 
genuineness “ess conspicuously than any other twelve con- 
secutive verses in the same Gospel. But that is all. The 
one only question to be decided is the following :—On 
a review of the whole of the evidence,—is it more reason- 
able to stigmatize these twelve verses as a spurious accre- 
tion to the Gospel? Or to admit that they must needs be 
accounted to be genuine? . . . I shall shew that they are 
at this hour supported by a weight of testimony which is 

1 Developed Criticism, p. 82. 2 Outlines, &c., p. 103. 
8 Nicholson’s Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 141. 
* Scrivener, ut supra, ii. 368. 

R 2 


absolutely overwhelming. I read with satisfaction that 
my own convictions were shared by Mill, Matthaei, Adler, 
Scholz, Vercellone. I have also the learned Ceriani on my 
side. I should have been just as confident had I stood 
alone :—such is the imperative strength of the evidence. 

To begin then. Tischendorf—(who may be taken as 
a fair sample of the assailants of this passage)—com- 
mences by stating roundly that the Pericope is omitted 
by NABCLTXA, and about seventy cursives. I will say 
at once, that no sincere inquirer after truth could so state 
the evidence. It is in fact not a true statement. A and 
C are hereabout defective. No longer possible therefore 
is it to know with certainty what they either did, or did 
not, contain. But this is not merely all. I proceed to offer 
a few words concerning Cod. A. 

Woide, the learned and accurate! editor of the Codex 
Alexandrinus, remarked (in 1785)—‘ Historia adulterae 
videtur in hoc codice defuisse. But this modest inference 
of his, subsequent Critics have represented as an ascertained 
fact, Tischendorf announces it as ‘certissimum. Let me 
be allowed to investigate the problem for myself. Woide’s 
calculation,—(which has passed unchallenged for nearly 
a hundred years, and on the strength of which it is now-a- 
days assumed that Cod. A must have exactly resembled 
Codd. NB in omitting the pericope de adultera,)—was far 
too roughly made to be of any critical use”. 

Two leaves of Cod. A have been here lost: viz. from the 
word xataBaivwy in vi. 50 to the word Aéyets in viii. 52: 
a lacuna (as I find by counting the letters in a copy of 

1 I insert this epithet on sufficient authority. Mr. Edw. A. Guy, an in- 
telligent young American,—himself a very accurate observer and a competent 
judge,—collated a considerable part of Cod. A in 1875, and assured me that 
he scarcely ever found any discrepancy between the Codex and Woide’s reprint. 
One instance of z¢alicism was in fact all that had been overlooked in the course 
of many pages. 

2 It is inaccurate also. His five lines contain eight mistakes. Praefat. 
p- xxx, § 86. 


the ordinary text) of as nearly as possible 8,805 letters,— 
allowing for contractions, and of course not reckoning 
St. John vii. 53 to viii. 11. Now, in order to estimate 
fairly how many letters the two lost leaves actually con- 
tained, I have inquired for the sums of the letters on the 
leaf immediately preceding, and also on the leaf immediately 
succeeding the hiatus; and I find them to be respectively 
4,337 and 4,303: together, 8,640 letters. But this, it will 
be seen, is insufficient by 165 letters, or eight lines, for the 
assumed contents of these two missing leaves. Are we 
then to suppose that one leaf exhibited somewhere a blank 
space equivalent to eight lines? Impossible, I answer. 
There existed, on the contrary, a considerable redundancy 
of matter in at least the second of those two lost leaves. 
This is proved by the circumstance that the first column 
on the next ensuing leaf exhibits the unique phenomenon 
of being encumbered, at its summit, by two very long lines 
(containing together fifty-eight letters), for which evidently 
no room could be found on the page which immediately 
preceded. But why should there have been any redundancy 
of matter at all? Something extraordinary must have 
produced it. What if the Pericope de adultera, without 
being actually inserted in full, was recognized by Cod. A? 
What if the scribe had proceeded as far as the fourth word 
of St. John viii. 3, and then had suddenly checked himself? 
We cannot tell what appearance St. John vii. 53-viii. 11 
presented in Codex A, simply because the entire leaf which 
should have contained it is lost. Enough however has 
been said already to prove that it is incorrect and unfair 
to throw NAB into one and the same category,—with 
a ‘certissimum,’—as Tischendorf does. 

As for L and A, they exhibit a vacant space after 
St. John vii. 52,—which testifies to the consciousness of 
the copyists that they were leaving out something. These 
are therefore witnesses for,—not witnesses against,—the — 

246 . APPENDIX I. 

passage under discussion—X being a Commentary on 
the Gospel as it was read in Church, of course leaves the 
passage out.—The only uncial MSS. therefore which simply 
leave out the pericope, are the three following—NBT : and 
the degree of attention to which such an amount of evidence 
is entitled, has been already proved to be wondrous small. 
We cannot forget moreover that the two former of these 
copies enjoy the unenviable distinction of standing alone 
on a memorable occasion :—they alone exhibit St. Mark’s 
Gospel mutilated in respect of its twelve concluding verses. 

But I shall be reminded that about seventy MSS. of 
later date are without the pericope de adultera: that the 
first Greek Father who quotes the pericope is Euthymius 
in the twelfth century: that Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, 
Cyril, Nonnus, Cosmas, Theophylact, knew nothing of it: 
and that it is not contained in the Syriac, the Gothic, 
or the Egyptian versions. Concerning every one of which 
statements I remark over again that no sincere lover of 
Truth, supposing him to understand the matter about 
which he is disputing, could so exhibit the evidence for 
this particular problem. First, because so to state it is to 
misrepresent the entire case. Next, because some of the 
articles of indictment are only half true :—in fact are untrue. 
But chiefly, because in the foregoing enumeration certain 
considerations are actually suppressed which, had they 
been fairly stated, would have been found to reverse the 
issue. Let me now be permitted to conduct this inquiry 
in my Own way. 

The first thing to be done is to enable the reader clearly 
to understand what the problem before him actually is. 
Twelve verses then, which, as a matter of fact, are found 
dovetailed into a certain context of St. John’s Gospel, the 
Critics insist must now be dislodged. But do the Critics 
in question prove that they must? For unless they do, 
there is no help for it but the pericope de adultera must be 


left where it is. I proceed to shew first, that it is im- 
possible, on any rational principle to dislodge these twelve 
verses from their actual context.—Next, I shall point out 
that the facts adduced in evidence and relied on by the 
assailants of the passage, do not by any means prove the 
point they are intended to prove ; but admit of a sufficient 
and satisfactory explanation—Thirdly, it shall be shewn 
that the said explanation carries with it, and implies, a 
weight of testimony in support of the twelve verses in 
dispute, which is absolutely overwhelming.—Lastly, the 
positive evidence in favour of these twelve verses shall 
be proved to outweigh largely the negative evidence, 
which is relied upon by those who contend for their removal. 
To some people I may seem to express myself with too 
much confidence. Let it then be said once for all, that 
my confidence is inspired by the strength of the argu- 
ments which are now to be unfolded. When the Author 
of Holy Scripture supplies such proofs of His intentions, 
I cannot do otherwise than rest implicit confidence in 

Now I begin by establishing as my first proposition 

(1) These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position 
which they now occupy from the earliest period to which 
evidence concerning the Gospels reaches. 

And this, because it is a mere matter of fact, is sufficiently 
established by reference to the ancient Latin version of 
St. John’s Gospel. We are thus carried back to the second 
century of our era: beyond which, testimony does not 
reach. The pericope is observed to stand im s¢tw in 
Codd. bc e ff* ghj. Jerome (A.D. 385), after a careful 
survey of older Greek copies, did not hesitate. to retain it in 
the Vulgate. It is freely referred to and commented on by 
himself! in Palestine: while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes 

1 ij, 630, addressing Rufinus, A.D. 403. Also ii. 748-9. 

oo ee eee ay 


it at least nine times!; as well as Augustine in North 
Africa (396) about twice as often”. It is quoted besides 
by Pacian °, in the north of Spain (370),—by Faustus * the 
African (400),—by Rufinus® at Aquileia (400),—by Chry- 
sologus® at Ravenna (433),—by Sedulius? a Scot (434). 
The unknown authors of two famous treatises ® written at 
the same period, largely quote this portion of the narrative. 
It is referred to by Victorius or Victorinus (457),—by 
Vigilius of Tapsus® (484) in North Africa,—by Gelasius '°, 
bp. of Rome (492),—by Cassiodorus™ in Southern Italy,— 
by Gregory the Great}*, and by other Fathers of the 
Western Church. 

To this it is idle to object that the authors cited all 
wrote in Latin. For the purpose in hand their evidence 
is every bit as conclusive as if they had written in Greek,— 
from which language no one doubts that they derived 

' i, 291, 692, 707, 1367: ii. 668, 894, 1082: iii. 892-3, 896-7. 

2 1.30: ii. 527, 529-30: iii’. 774: iii%. 158, 183, 531-2 (where he quotes 
the place largely and comments upon it): iv. 149, 466 (largely quoted), 1120: 
v. 80, 1230 (largely quoted in both places): vi. 407, 413: viii. 377, 574. 

’ Pacian (A.D. 372) refers the Novatians to the narrative as something 
which all men knew. ‘Nolite in Evangelio legere quod pepercerit Dominus 
etiam adulterae confitenti, quam nemo damnarat?’ Pacianus, Op. Epist. iii. 
Contr. Novat. (A.D. 372). Ag. Galland. vii. 267. 

* Ap. Augustin. viii. 463. 

> In his translation of Eusebius. Nicholson, p. 53. 

6 Chrysologus, A.D. 433, Abp. of Ravenna. Venet. 1742. He mystically 
explains the entire incident. Serm. cxv. § 5. 

7 Sedulius (A.D. 435) makes it the subject of a poem, and devotes a whole 
chapter to it. 4g. Galland. ix. 553 and 590. 

® *Promiss.’ De Promissionibus dimid. temp. (saec. iv). Quotes viii. 4, 5, 
g. P. 2, c 22, col. 147 b. Ignot. Auct., De Vocatione omnium Gentium 
(circa, A.D. 440), af. Opp. Prosper. Aquit. (1782), i. p. 460-1 :—‘ Adul- 
teram ex legis constitutione lapidandam . . . liberavit . . . cum executores 
praecepti de conscientiis territi, trementem ream sub illius iudicio reliquis- 
sent. . . . Et inclinatus, id est ad humana dimissus... “ digito scribebat in 
terram,” ut legem mandatorum per gratiae decreta vacuaret,’ &c. 

® Wrongly ascribed to Idacius, 

© Gelasius P. A.D. 492. Conc. iv. 1235. Quotes viii. 3, 7, 10, II. 

™ Cassiodorus, A.D. 514. Venet. 1729. Quotes viii. 11. See ii. p. 96, 
3, 5-180. 

12 Dialogues, xiv. 15. 


their knowledge, through a translation. But in fact we 
are not left to Latin authorities. [Out of thirty-eight 
copies of the Bohairic version the pericope de adultera is 
read in fifteen, but in three forms which will be printed 
in the Oxford edition. In the remaining twenty-three, it is 
left out.] How is it intelligible that this passage is thus 
found in nearly half the copies—except on the hypothesis 
that they formed an integral part of the Memphitic version ? 
They might have been easily omitted: but how could they 
have been inserted ? 

Once more. The Ethiopic version (fifth century),—the 
Palestinian Syriac (which is referred to the fifth century), 
—the Georgian (probably fifth or sixth century),—to say 
nothing of the Slavonic, Arabic and Persian versions, which 
are of later date,—all contain the portion of narrative in 
dispute. The Armenian version also (fourth—fifth century) 
originally contained it; though it survives at present in 
only a few copies. Add that it is found in Cod. D, and it 
will be seen that in all parts of ancient Christendom this 
portion of Scripture was familiarly known in early times. 

But even this is not all. Jerome, who was familiar with 
Greek MSS. (and who handled none of later date than 
B and &), expressly relates (380) that the pericope de 
adultera ‘is found in many copies both Greek and Latin'.’ 
He calls attention to the fact that what is rendered ‘sine 
peccato’ is dvapdprnros in the Greek: and lets fall an 
exegetical remark which shews that he was familiar with 
copies which exhibited (in ver. 8) eypapev evos exaotov avrwy 
ras auaptias,—a reading which survives to this day in one 
uncial (U) and at least eighteen cursive copies of the fourth 
Gospel2. Whence is it—let me ask in passing—that so 

1 ii. 748 :—In evangelio secundum Joannem in multis et Graecis et Latinis 
codicibus invenitur de adultera muliere, quae accusata est apud Dominum. 

2 &yds éxdorou ai’tav Tas dpaprias. Ev. 95, 40, 48, 64, 73, 100, 122, 127, 
142, 234, 264, 267, 274, 433, 115, 121, 604, 730. 


many Critics fail to see that fositive testimony like the 
foregoing far outweighs the adverse xegative testimony of 
NBT,—aye, and of AC to boot if they were producible on 
this point? How comes it to pass that the two Codexes, 
N and B, have obtained such a mastery—rather exercise 
such a tyranny—over the imagination of many Critics as 
quite to overpower their practical judgement? We have 
at all events established our first proposition: viz. that 
from the earliest period to which testimony reaches, the 
incident of ‘the woman taken in adultery’ occupied its 
present place in St. John’s Gospel. The Critics eagerly 
remind us that in four cursive copies (13, 69, 124, 346), the 
verses in question are found tacked on to the end of 
St. Luke xxi. But have they then forgotten that ‘these 
four Codexes are derived from a common archetype, and 
therefore represent one and the same ancient and, I may 
add, corrupt copy? The same Critics are reminded that 
in the same four Codexes [commonly called the Ferrar 
Group] ‘the agony and bloody sweat’ (St. Luke xxii. 43, 
44) is found thrust into St. Matthew’s Gospel between 
ch. xxvi. 39 and 40. Such licentiousness on the part of 
a solitary exemplar of the Gospels no more affects the 
proper place of these or of those verses than the super- 
fluous digits of a certain man of Gath avail to disturb the 
induction that to either hand of a human being appertain 
but five fingers, and to either foot but five toes. 

It must be admitted then that as far back as testimony 
reaches the passage under discussion stood where it now 
stands in St. John’s Gospel. And this is my first position. 
But indeed, to be candid, hardly any one has seriously 
called that fact in question. No, nor do any (except 
Dr. Hort!) doubt that the passage is also of the remotest 
antiquity. Adverse Critics do but insist that however 
ancient, it must needs be of spurious origin: or else that 

1 Appendix, p. 88. 



it is an afterthought of the Evangelist :—concerning both 
which imaginations we shall have a few words to offer by- 

It clearly follows,—indeed it may be said with truth that 
it only remains,—to inquire what may have led to its so 
frequent exclusion from the sacred Text? For really the 
difficulty has already resolved itself into that. 

And on this head, it is idle to affect perplexity. In 
the earliest age of all—the age which was familiar with 
the universal decay of heathen virtue, but which had not 
yet witnessed the power of the Gospel to fashion society 
afresh, and to build up domestic life on a new and more 
enduring basis;—at a time when the greatest laxity of 
morals prevailed, and the enemies of the Gospel were 
known to be on the look out for grounds of cavil against 
Christianity and its Author;—what wonder if some were 
found to remove the pericope de adultera from their 
copies, lest it should be pleaded in extenuation of breaches 
of the seventh commandment? The very subject-matter, 
I say, of St. John viii. 3-11 would sufficiently account for 
the occasional omission of those nine verses. Moral con- 
siderations abundantly explain what is found to have here 
and there happened. But in fact this is not a mere con- 
jecture of my own. It is the reason assigned by Augustine 
for the erasure of these twelve verses from many copies 
of the Gospel’. Ambrose, a quarter of a century earlier, 
had clearly intimated that danger was popularly appre- 

1 yi. 407 :—Sed hoc videlicet infidelium sensus exhorret, ita ut nonnulli 
modicae fidei vel potius inimici verae fidei, (credo metuentes peccandi impuni- 
tatem dari mulieribus suis), illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus 
fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis: quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui 
dixit, ‘Iam deinceps noli peccare ;’ aut ideo non debuerit mulier a medico Deo 
illius peccati remissione sanari, ne offenderentur insani. De coniug. adult. ii. 
cap. 7. i. 707:—Fortasse non mediocrem scrupulum movere potuit imperitis 
Evangelii lectio, quae decursa est, in quo advertistis adulteram Christo 
oblatam, eamque sine damnatione dimissam. Nam profecto si quis ea auribus 
accipiat otiosis, incentivum erroris incurrit, cum leget quod Deus censuerit 
adulterium non esse damnandum. 


hended from this quarter!: while Nicon, five centuries 
later, states plainly that the mischievous tendency of 
the narrative was the cause why it had been expunged 
from the Armenian version®. Accordingly, just a few 
Greek copies are still to be found mutilated in respect 
of those nine verses only. But in fact the indications 
are not a few that all the twelve verses under discussion 
did not by any means labour under the same degree 
of disrepute. The first three (as I shewed at the out- 
set) clearly belong to a different category from the 
last nine,—a circumstance which has been too much 

The Church in the meantime for an obvious reason had 
made choice of St. John vii. 37—-viii. 12—the greater part of 
which is clearly descriptive of what happened at the Feast 
of Tabernacles—for her Pentecostal lesson: and judged it 
expedient, besides omitting as inappropriate to the occasion 
the incident of the woman taken in adultery, to ignore also 
the three preceding verses ;—making the severance begin, 
in fact, as far back as the end of ch. vii. 52. The reason 
for this is plain. In this way the allusion to a certain 
departure at night, and return early next morning (St. John 
vii. 53: viii. 1), was avoided, which entirely marred the 
effect of the lection as the history of a day of great and 
special solemnity,—‘ the great day of the Feast.’ And thus 
it happens that the gospel for the day of Pentecost was 
made to proceed directly from ‘Search and look: for out 
of Galilee ariseth no prophet, in ch. vii. 52,—to ‘Then 
spake JESUS unto them, saying, I am the light of the 
world,’ in ch. viii. 12; with which it ends. In other words, 
an omission which owed its beginning to a moral scruple 

} Epist. 58. Quid scribebat? nisi illud Propheticum (Jer. xxii. 29-30), 
Terra, terra, scribe hos vivos abdicatos. 

? Constt. App. (Gen. iii. 49). Nicon (Gen. iii. 250). I am not certain 
about these two references. 


was eventually extended for a liturgical consideration ; and 
resulted in severing twelve verses of St. John’s Gospel— 
ch. vii. 53 to viii. 11—from their lawful context. 

We may now proceed to the consideration of my second 
proposition, which is 

(2) That by the very construction of her Lectionary, the 
Church in her corporate capacity and official character has 
solemnly recognized the narrative in question as an integral 
part of St. Fohn's Gospel, and as standing in its traditional 
place, from an exceedingly remote time. 

Take into your hands at random the first MS. copy of 
St. John’s Gospel which presents itself, and turn to the 
place in question. Nay, I will instance a// the four Evan- 
gelia which I call mine,—all the seventeen which belong 
to Lord Zouch,—all the thirty-nine which Baroness Burdett- 
Coutts imported from Epirus in 1870-2. Now all these 
copies—(and nearly each of them represents a different line 
of ancestry)—are found to contain the verses in question. 
How did the verses ever get there? 

But the most extraordinary circumstance of the case is 
behind. Some out of the Evangelia referred to are observed 
to have been prepared for ecclesiastical use: in other words, 
are so rubricated throughout as to shew where every separate 
lection had its ‘beginning’ (dpy7), and where its ‘end’ 
(réAos). And some of these lections are made up of dis- 
jointed portions of the Gospel. Thus, the lection for 
Whitsunday is found to have extended from St. John 
vii. 37 to St. John viii. 12; beginning at the words 77 
éoxdrn hepa Th peyadn, and ending—rd és ris (wis: but 
over-leaping the twelve verses now under discussion: viz. 
vii. 53 to viii. 11. Accordingly, the word ‘over-leap’ 
(s7épBa) is written in ad/ the copies after vii. 52,—whereby 
the reader, having read on to the end of that verse, was 
directed to skip all that followed down to the words xai 
pnxére Gudprave in ch. viii. 11: after which he found himself 


instructed to ‘recommence’ (&péar). Again I ask (and this 
time does not the riddle admit of only one solution ?),— 
When and how does the reader suppose that the narrative 
of ‘the woman taken in adultery’ first found its way into 
the middle of the lesson for Pentecost? I pause for an 
answer: I shall perforce be told that it never ‘found its 
way’ into the lection at all: but having once crept into 
St. John’s Gospel, however that may have: been effected, 
and established itself there, it left those ancient men who 
devised the Church’s Lectionary without choice. They 
could but direct its omission, and employ for that purpose 
the established liturgical formula in all similar cases. 

But first,—How is it that those who would reject the 
narrative are not struck by the essential foolishness of 
supposing that twelve fabricated verses, purporting to be 
an integral part of the fourth Gospel, can have so firmly 
established themselves in every part of Christendom from 
the second century downwards, that they have long since 
become simply ineradicable? Did the Church then, pro 
hac vice, abdicate her function of being ‘a witness and 
a keeper of Holy Writ’? Was she all of a sudden forsaken 
by the inspiring SPIRIT, who, as she was promised, should 
‘guide her into all Truth’? And has she been all down 
the ages guided into the grievous error of imputing to the 
disciple whom JESUS loved a narrative of which he knew 
nothing? For, as I remarked at the outset, this is not 
merely an assimilated expression, or an unauthorized 
nominative, or a weakly-supported clause, or any such 
trifling thing. Although be it remarked in passing, I am 
not aware of a single such trifling excrescence which we 
are not able at once to detect and to remove. In other 
words, this is not at all a question, like the rest, about the 
genuine text of a passage. Our inquiry is of an essentially 
different kind, viz. Are these twelve consecutive verses 
Scripture at all, or not? Divine or human? Which? 


They claim by their very structure and contents to be an 
integral part of the Gospel. And such a serious accession 
to the Deposit, I insist, can neither have ‘crept into’ the 
Text, nor have ‘crept out’ of it. The thing is unexampled, 
—is unapproached,—is impossible. 

Above -all,—(the reader is entreated to give the subject 
his sustained attention)——Is it not perceived that the 
admission involved in the hypothesis before us is fatal 
to any rational pretence that the passage is of spurious 
origin? We have got back in thought at least to the 
third or fourth century of our era. We are among the 
Fathers and Doctors of the Eastern Church in conference 
assembled: and they are determining what shall be the 
Gospel for the great Festival of Pentecost. ‘It shall 
begin’ (say they) ‘at the thirty-seventh verse of St. John 
vii, and conclude with the twelfth verse of St. John viii. 
But so much of it as relates to the breaking up of the 
Sanhedrin,—to the withdrawal of our LORD to the Mount 
of Olives,—and to His return next morning to the Temple, 
—had better not be read. It disturbs the unity of the 
narrative. So also had the incident of the woman taken 
in adultery better not be read. It is inappropriate to the 
Pentecostal Festival.’ The Authors of the great Oriental 
Liturgy therefore admit that they find the disputed verses 
in their copies: and thus they vouch for their genuineness. 
For none will doubt that, had they regarded them as 
a spurious accretion to the inspired page, they would have 
said so plainly. Nor can it be denied that if in their 
corporate capacity they had disallowed these twelve verses, 
such an authoritative condemnation would most certainly 
have resulted in the perpetual exclusion from the Sacred 
Text of the part of these verses which was actually adopted 
as a Lection. What stronger testimony on the contrary 
can be imagined to the genuineness of any given portion 
of the everlasting Gospel than that it should have been 


canonized or recognized as part of Inspired Scripture by 
the collective wisdom of the Church in the third or fourth 
century ? 

And no one may regard it as a suspicious circumstance 
that the present Pentecostal lection has been thus maimed 
and mutilated in respect of twelve of its verses. There is 
nothing at all extraordinary in the treatment which St. John 
vii. 37-viii. 12 has here experienced. The phenomenon is 
even of perpetual recurrence in the Lectionary of the 
East,—as will be found explained below?. 

Permit me to suppose that, between the Treasury and 
Whitehall, the remote descendant of some Saxon thane 
occupied a small tenement and garden which stood in the 
very middle of the ample highway. Suppose further, 
the property thereabouts being Government property, that 
the road on either side of this estate had been measured 
a hundred times, and jealously watched, ever since West- 
minster became Westminster. Well, an act of Parliament 
might no doubt compel the supposed proprietor of this 
singular estate to surrender his patrimony; but I submit 
that no government lawyer would ever think of setting 
up the plea that the owner of that peculiar strip of land 
was an impostor. The man might have no title-deeds to 

1 Two precious verses (viz. the forty-third and forty-fourth) used to be 
omitted from the lection for Tuesday before Quinquagesima,—viz. St. Luke 
xxli. 39-Xxiil. I. 

The lection for the preceding Sabbath (viz. St. Luke xxi. 8-36) consisted of 
only the following verses,—ver. 8, 9, 25-27, 33-36. All the rest (viz. verses 
10-24 and 28-32) was omitted. 

On the ensuing Thursday, St. Luke xxiii was handled in a similar style: viz. 
ver. I-31, 33, 44-56 alone were read,—all the other verses being left out. 

On the first Sabbath after Pentecost (All Saints’), the lesson consisted of 
St. Matt. x. 32, 33, 37-38: xix. 27-30. 

On the fifteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. xxiv. 1-9, 
13 (leaving out verses 10, II, 12). 

On the sixteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. xxiv. 
24-37, 42-44 (leaving out verses 38-41). 

On the sixth Sabbath of St. Luke,—the lesson was ch. viii. 26-35 followed 
by verses 38 and 39. 


produce, to be sure; but counsel for the defendant would 
plead that neither did he require any. ‘This man’s title’ 
(counsel would say) ‘is—occupation for a thousand years. 
His evidences are—the allowance of the State throughout 
that long interval. Every procession to St. Stephen’s— 
every procession to the Abbey—has swept by defendant’s 
property—on this side of it and on that,—since the days 
of Edward the Confessor. And if my client refuses to 
quit the soil, I defy you—except by violence—to get rid 
of him.’ 

In this way then it is that the testimony borne to these 
verses by the Lectionary of the East proves to be of the 
most opportune and convincing character. The careful 
provision made for passing by the twelve verses in dispute : 
—the minute directions which fence those twelve verses off 
on this side and on that, directions issued we may be sure 
by the highest Ecclesiastical authority, because recognized 
in every part of the ancient Church,—not only establish 
them effectually in their rightful place, but (what is at least 
of equal importance) fully explain the adverse phenomena 
which are ostentatiously paraded by adverse critics; and 
which, until the clue has been supplied, are calculated to 
mislead the judgement. 

For now, for the first time, it becomes abundantly plain 
why Chrysostom and Cyril, in publicly commenting on 
St. John’s Gospel, pass straight from ch. vii. 52 to ch. viii. 
12. Of course they do. Why should they,—how could 
they,—comment on what was not publicly read before the 
congregation? The same thing is related (in a well-known 
‘scholium’) to have been done by Apolinarius and Theodore 
of Mopsuestia. Origen also, for aught I care,—though the 
adverse critics have no right to claim him, seeing that his 
commentary on all that part of St. John’s Gospel is lost ;— 
but. Origen’s name, as I was saying, for aught I care, may 
be added to those who did the same thing. A triumphant 

II. Ss 


refutation of the proposed inference from the silence of 
these many Fathers is furnished by the single fact that 
Theophylact must also be added to their number. Theo- 
phylact, I say, ignores the pericope de adultera—passes it 
by, I mean,—exactly as do Chrysostom and Cyril. But 
will any one pretend that Theophylact,—writing in A.D. 
1077,—did not know of St. John vii. 53-viii. 11? Why, in 
nineteen out of every twenty copies within his reach, the 
whole of those twelve verses must have been to be found. 

The proposed inference from the silence of certain of the 
Fathers is therefore invalid. The argument e szlentio— 
always an insecure argument,—proves inapplicable in this 
particular case. When the antecedent facts have been 
once explained, all the subsequent phenomena become 
intelligible. But a more effectual and satisfactory reply 
to the difficulty occasioned by the general silence of the 
Fathers, remains to be offered. 

There underlies the appeal to Patristic authority an 
opinion,—not expressed indeed, yet consciously entertained 
by us all,—which in fact gives the appeal all its weight 
and cogency, and which must now by all means be brought 
to the front. The fact that the Fathers of the Church 
were not only her Doctors and Teachers, but also the 
living voices by which alone her mind could be proclaimed 
to the world, and by which her decrees used to be 
authoritatively promulgated ;—-this fact, I say, it is which 
makes their words, whenever they deliver themselves, so 
very important: their approval, if they approve, so weighty ; 
their condemnation, if they condemn, so fatal. But then, 
in the present instance, they do not condemn. They 
neither approve nor condemn. They simply say nothing. 
They are silent: and in what precedes, I have explained 
the reason why. We wish it had been otherwise. We 
would give a great deal to persuade those ancient oracles 
to speak on the subject of these twelve verses: but they 


are all but inexorably silent. Nay, I am overstating the 
case against myself. Two of the greatest Fathers (Augus- 
tine and Ambrose) actually do utter a few words; and 
they are to the effect that the verses are undoubtedly 
genuine :—‘ Be it known to all men’ (they say) ‘that this 
passage zs genuine: but the nature of its subject-matter 
has at once procured its ejection from MSS., and resulted 
in the silence of Commentators.’ The most learned of the 
Fathers in addition practically endorses the passage; for 
Jerome not only leaves it standing in the Vulgate where he 
found it in the Old Latin version, but relates that it was 
supported by Greek as well as Latin authorities. 

To proceed however with what I was about to say. 

It is the authoritative sentence of the Church then on 
this difficult subject that we desiderate. We resorted to 
the Fathers for that: intending to regard any quotations 
of theirs, however brief, as their practical endorsement of 
all the twelve verses: to infer from their general recogni- 
tion of the passage, that the Church in her collective 
capacity accepted it likewise. As I have shewn, the 
Fathers decline, almost to a man, to return any answer. 
But,—Are we then without the Church’s authoritative 
guidance on this subject? For this, I repeat, is the only 
thing of which we are in search. It was only in order to 
get at this that we adopted the laborious expedient of 
watching for the casual utterances of any of the giants 
of old time. Are we, I say, left without the Church’s 
opinion ? 

Not so, I answer. The reverse is the truth. The great 
Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of 
thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the 
written records of her practice reach,—and they reach 
back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence we 
felt to be embarrassing,—the Eastern Church has selected 
nine out of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for 



October 8. A more significant circumstance it would be 
impossible to adduce in evidence. Any pretence to fasten 
a charge of spuriousness on a portion of Scripture so 
singled out by the Church for honour, were nothing else 
but monstrous. It would be in fact to raise quite a distinct 
issue: viz. to inquire what amount of respect is due to 
the Church’s authority in determining the authenticity of 
Scripture? I appeal not to an opinion, but to a fact: and 
that fact is, that though the Fathers of the Church for 
a very sufficient reason are very nearly silent on the subject 
of these twelve verses, the Church herself has spoken with 
a voice of authority so loud that none can affect not to 
hear it: so plain, that it cannot possibly be misunderstood. 

And let me not be told that I am hereby setting up the 
Lectionary as the true standard of appeal for the Text 
of the New Testament: still less let me be suspected of 
charging on the collective body of the faithful whatever 
irregularities are discoverable in the Codexes which were 
employed for the public reading of Scripture. Such a 
suspicion could only be entertained by one who has 
hitherto failed to apprehend the precise point just now 
under consideration. We are not examining the text of 
St. John vii. 53-viii. 11. We are only discussing whether 
those twelve verses ex bloc are to be regarded as an integral 
part of the fourth Gospel, or as a spurious accretion to it. 
And that is a point on which the Church in her corporate 
character must needs be competent to pronounce; and in 
respect of which her verdict must needs be decisive. She 
delivered her verdict in favour of these twelve verses, 
remember, at a time when her copies of the Gospels were 
of papyrus as well as ‘old uncials’ on vellum.—Nay, before 
‘old uncials’ on vellum were at least in any general use. 
True, that the transcribers of Lectionaries have proved 
themselves just as liable to error as the men who tran- 
scribed Evangelia. But then, it is incredible that those 


men forged the Gospel for St. Pelagia’s day: impossible, if 
it were a forgery, that the Church should have adopted it. 
And it is the significancy of the Church having adopted 
the pericope de adultera as the lection for October 8, 
which has never yet been sufficiently attended to: and 
which I defy the Critics to account for on any hypothesis 
but one: viz. that the pericope was recognized by the 
ancient Eastern Church as an integral part of the Gospel. 
Now when to this has been added what is implied in 
the rubrical direction that a ceremonious respect should be 
shewn to the Festival of Pentecost by dropping the twelve 
verses, I submit that I have fully established my second 
position, viz. That by the very construction of her Lectionary 
the Church in her corporate capacity and official character 
has solemnly recognized the narrative in question, as an 
integral part of St. John’s Gospel, and as standing in its 
traditional place, from an exceedingly remote time. 
For,—(I entreat the candid reader’s sustained attention), 
—the circumstances of the present problem altogether 
refuse to accommodate themselves to any hypothesis of 
a spurious original for these verses ; as I proceed to shew. 
Repair in thought to any collection of MSS. you please ; 
suppose to the British Museum. Request to be shewn 
their seventy-three copies of St. John’s Gospel, and turn 
to the close of his seventh chapter. At that particular 
place you will find, in sixty-one of these copies, these 
twelve verses: and in thirty-five of them you will discover, 
after the words [poqijrns éx ris TadwAalas odk éy. a rubrical 
note to the effect that ‘on Whitsunday, these twelve verses 
are to be dropped ; and the reader is to go on at ch. viii. 
12.’ What can be the meaning of this respectful treatment 
of the Pericope in question? How can it ever have come 
to pass that it has been thus ceremoniously handled all 
down the ages? Surely on no possible view of the matter 
but one can the phenomenon just now described be 


accounted for. Else, will any one gravely pretend to tell 
me that at some indefinitely remote period, (1) These verses 
were fabricated: (2) Were thrust into the place they at 
present occupy in the sacred text: (3) Were unsuspectingly 
believed to be genuine by the Church ; and in consequence 
of which they were at once passed over by her direction on 
Whitsunday as incongruous, and appointed by the Church 
to be read on October 8, as appropriate to the occasion? 

(3) But further. How is it proposed to explain why one 
of St. John’s after-thoughts should have fared so badly at 
the Church’s hands ;—another, so well? I find it suggested 
that perhaps the subject-matter may sufficiently account for 
all that has happened to the pericope de adultera: And so it 
may, no doubt. But then, once admit ¢hzs, and the hypo- 
thesis under consideration becomes simply nugatory : fails 
even to ¢ouch the difficulty which it professes to remove. 
For if men were capable of thinking scorn of these twelve 
verses when they found them in the ‘second and improved 
edition of St. John’s Gospel, why may they not have been 
just as irreverent in respect of the same verses, when they 
appeared in the first edition? How is it one whit more 
probable that every Greek Father for a thousand years 
should have systematically overlooked the twelve verses 
in dispute when they appeared in the second edition of 
St. John’s Gospel, than that the same Fathers should 
have done the same thing when they appeared in the 
first 1? 

(4) But the hypothesis is gratuitous and nugatory: for 
it has been invented in order to account for the pheno- 
menon that whereas twelve verses of St. John’s Gospel 
are found in the large majority of the later Copies,—the 

1 «This celebrated paragraph ... was probably not contained in the first 
edition of St. John’s Gospel but added at the time when his last chapter was 
annexed to what had once been the close of his narrative,—xx. 30, 31. 
Scrivener’s Introduction to Cod. D, p. 50. 


Same verses are observed to be absent from all but one 
of the five oldest Codexes. But how, (I wish to be 
informed,) is that hypothesis supposed to square with these 
phenomena? It cannot be meant that the ‘second edition ’ 
of St. John did not come abroad until after Codd. NABCT 
were written? For we know that the old Italic version 
(a document of the second century) contains all the three 
portions of narrative which are claimed for the second 
edition. But if this is not meant, it is plain that some 
further hypothesis must be invented in order to explain 
why certain Greek MSS. of the fourth and fifth centuries 
are without the verses in dispute. And this fresh hypo- 
thesis will render that under consideration (as I said) 
nugatory and shew that it was gratuitous. 

What chiefly offends me however in this extraordinary 
suggestion is its zrreverence. It assumes that the Gospel 
according to St. John was composed like any ordinary 
modern book: capable therefore of being improved in the 
second edition, by recension, addition, omission, retracta- 
tion, or what not. For we may not presume to limit the 
changes effected in a second edition. And yet the true 
Author of the Gospel is confessedly Gop the HOLY Guost : 
and I know of no reason for supposing that His works are 
imperfect when they proceed forth from His Hands. 

The cogency of what precedes has in fact weighed so 
powerfully with thoughtful and learned Divines that they 
have felt themselves constrained, as their last resource, 
to cast about for some hypothesis which shall at once 
account for the absence of these verses from so many 
copies of St. John’s Gospel, and yet retain them for their 
rightful owner and author,—St. John. Singular to relate, 
the assumption which has best approved itself to their 
judgement has been, that there must have existed two 
editions of St. John’s Gospel,—the earlier edition without, 
the later edition with, the incident under discussion. It is 


I presume, in order to conciliate favour to this singular 
hypothesis, that it has been further proposed to regard 
St. John v. 3, 4 and the whole of St. John xxi, (besides 
St. John vii. 53-viii. 11), as after-thoughts of the Evangelist. 

1. But this is unreasonable: for nothing else but che 
absence of St. John vii. 53-viii. 11, from so many copies 
of the Gospel has constrained the Critics to regard those 
verses with suspicion. Whereas, on the contrary, there is 
not known to exist a copy in the world which omits so 
much as a single verse of chap. xxi. Why then are we 
to assume that the whole of that chapter was away from 
the original draft of the Gospel? Where is the evidence 
for so extravagant an assumption? 

2. So, concerning St. John v. 3, 4: to which there really 
attaches no manner of doubt, as I have elsewhere shewn !. 
Thirty-two precious words in that place are indeed omitted 
by NBC: twenty-seven by D. But by this time the 
reader knows what degree of importance is to be attached 
to such an amount of evidence. On the other hand, they 
are found in all other copies: are vouched for by the 
Syriac” and the Latin versions: in the Apostolic Con- 
stitutions, by Chrysostom, Cyril, Didymus, and Ammonius, 
among the Greeks,—by Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, 
Augustine among the Latins. Why a passage so attested 
is to be assumed to be an after-thought of the Evangelist 
has never yet been explained: no, nor ever will be. 

(5) Assuming, however, just fora moment the hypothesis 
correct for argument’s sake, viz. that in the second edition 
of St. John’s Gospel the history of the woman taken in 
adultery appeared for the first time. Invite the authors of 
that hypothesis to consider what follows. The discovery that 
five out of six of the oldest uncials extant (to reckon here 
the fragment T) are without the verses in question; which 

? In an unpublished paper. 
* It is omitted in some MSS. of the Peshitto. 


yet are contained in ninety-nine out of every hundred of the 
despised cursives:—what other inference can be drawn 
from such premisses, but that the cursives fortified by other 
evidence are by far the more trustworthy witnesses of what 
St. John in his old age actually entrusted to the Church's 
keeping ? 

[The MS. here leaves off, except that a few pencilled 
words are added in an incomplete form. I have been 
afraid to finish so clever and characteristic an essay.| 



SOME of the most courteous of our critics, in reviewing 
the companion volume to this, have expressed regret that 
we have not grappled more closely than we have done with 
Dr. Hort’s theory. I have already expressed our reasons. 
Our object has been to describe and establish what we con- 
ceive to be the true principles of Sacred Textual Science. 
We are concerned only in a secondary degree with opposing 
principles. Where they have come in our way, we have 
endeavoured to remove them. But it has not entered 
within our design to pursue them into their fastnesses and 
domiciles. Nevertheless, in compliance with a request 
which is both proper and candid, I will do what I can 
to examine with all the equity that I can command an 
essential part of Dr. Hort’s system, which appears to 
exercise great influence with his followers. 

§ 1. 

Dr. Hort’s theory of ‘ Conflation’ may be discovered on 
pp. 93-107. The want of an index to his Introduction, 
notwithstanding his ample ‘Contents,’ makes it difficult to 
collect illustrations of his meaning from the rest of his 
treatise. Nevertheless, the effect of Conflation appears to 


be well described in his words on p. 133 :—‘ Now however 
the three great lines were brought together, and made to 
contribute to a text different from all.’ In other words, 
by means of a combination of the Western, Alexandrian, 
and ‘ Neutral’ Texts—‘the great lines of transmission... 
to all appearance exclusively divergent,—the ‘ Syrian’ text 
was constructed in a form different from any one and all 
of the other three. Not that all these three were made 
to contribute on every occasion. We find (p. 93) Conflation, 
or Conflate Readings, introduced as proving the ‘ posteriority 
of Syrian to Western ... and other... readings.’ And 
in the analysis of eight passages, which is added, only in 
one case (St. Mark viii. 26) are more than two elements 
represented, and in that the third class consists of ‘ different 
conflations’ of the first and second '. 

Perhaps I may present Dr. Hort’s theory under the form 
of a diagram :— 

Western Readings. Other Readings. 


Syrian Text. 

Our theory is the converse in main features to this. 
We utterly repudiate the term ‘ Syrian’ as being a most 
inadequate and untrue title for the Text adopted and 
maintained by the Catholic Church with all her intelli- 
gence and learning, during nearly fifteen centuries according 
to Dr. Hort’s admission: and we claim from the evidence 
that the Traditional Text of the Gospels, under the true 
name, is that which came fresh from the pens of the 
Evangelists; and that all variations from it, however they 
have been entitled, are nothing else than corrupt forms of 

1 Dr. Hort has represented Neutral readings by ¢, Western by A, as far Me, 
I can understand, ‘ other’ by 7, and ‘Syrian’ (=Traditional) by 4. But he 
nowhere gives an example of +. 


the original readings. Our diagram in rough presentation 
will therefore assume this character :— 

Traditional Text. 

Ea BS 

Western Readings. 

Alexandrian Readings. 

It should be added, that w, x, y, z, &c., denote forms of 
corruption. We do not recognize the ‘Neutral’ at all, 
believing it to be a Caesarean combination or recension, 
made from previous texts or readings of a corrupt 

The question is, which is the true theory, Dr. Hort’s 
or ours? 

The general points that strike us with reference to 
Dr. Hort’s theory are :— 

(1) That it is very vague and indeterminate in nature. 
Given three things, of which X includes what is in Y and 
Z, upon the face of the theory either X may have arisen 
by synthesis from Y and Z, or X and Z may owe their 
origin by analysis to X. 

(2) Upon examination it is found that Dr. Hort’s argu- 
ments for the posteriority of D are mainly of an internal 
character, and are loose and imaginative, depending largely 
upon personal or literary predilections. 

(3) That it is exceedingly improbable that the Church 
of the fourth and fifth centuries, which in a most able 
period had been occupied with discussions on verbal 
accuracy, should have made the gross mistake of adopting 
(what was then) a modern concoction from the original 

ee a 


text of the Gospels, which had been written less than 
three or four centuries before ; and that their error should 
have been acknowledged as truth, and perpetuated by the 
ages that succeeded them down to the present time. 

But we must draw nearer to Dr. Hort’s argument. 

He founds it upon a detailed examination of eight 
passages, viz. St. Mark vi. 33; viii. 26; ix. 38; ix. 49; 
St. Luke ix. 10; xi. 54; xii. 18; xxiv. 53. 

1. Remark that eight is a round and divisible number. 
Did the author decide upon it with a view of presenting 
two specimens from each Gospel? To be sure, he gives 
four from the first two, and four from the two last, only that 
he confines the batches severally to St. Mark and St. Luke. 
Did the strong style of St. Matthew, with distinct meaning 
in every word, yield no suitable example for treatment ? 
Could no passage be found in St. John’s Gospel, where not 
without parallel, but to a remarkable degree, extreme 
simplicity of language, even expressed in alternative clauses, 
clothes soaring thought and philosophical acuteness? True, 
that he quotes St. John v. 37 as an instance of Conflation 
by the Codex Bezae which is anything but an embodiment 
of the Traditional or ‘Syrian’ Text, and xiii. 24 which is 
similarly irrelevant. Neither of these instances therefore 
fill up the gap, and are accordingly not included in the 
selected eight. What can we infer from this presentment, 
but that ‘Conflation’ is probably not of frequent occurrence 
as has been imagined, but may indeed be—to admit for 
a moment its existence—nothing more than an occasional 
incident? For surely, if specimens in St. Matthew and 
St. John had abounded to his hand, and accordingly ‘ Con- 
flation’ had been largely employed throughout the Gospels, 
Dr. Hort would not have exercised so restricted, and yet so 
round a choice. 

2. But we must advance a step further. Dean Burgon 
as we have seen has calculated the differences between 


B and the Received Text at 7,578, and those which divide 
N and the Received Text as reaching 8,972. He divided 
these totals respectively under 2,877 and 3,455 omissions, 
536 and 839 additions, 2,098 and 2,299 transpositions, and 
2,067 and 2,379 substitutions and modifications combined. 
Of these classes, it is evident that Conflation has nothing 
to do with Additions or Transpositions. Nor indeed with 
Substitutions, although one of Dr. Hort’s instances appears 
to prove that it has. Conflation is the combination of 
two (or more) different expressions into one. If therefore 
both expressions occur in one of the elements, the Con- 
flation has been made beforehand, and a substitution then 
occurs instead of a conflation. So in St. Luke xii. 18, 
B, &c., read rév oirov xal ra dyaba pov, which Dr. Hort! 
considers to be made by Conflation into rd yevnatd pov Kal 
Ta dyabda pov, because ra yevyyard pov is found in Western 
documents. The logic is strange, but as Dr. Hort has 
claimed it, we must perhaps allow him to have intended 
to include with this strange incongruity some though not 
many Substitutions in his class of instances, only that we 
should like to know definitely what substitutions were to 
be comprised in this class. For I shrewdly suspect that 
there were actually none. Omissions are now left to us, of 
which the greater specimens can hardly have been produced 
by Conflation. How, for instance, could you get the last 
Twelve Verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, or the Pericope de 
Adultera, or St. Luke xxii. 43-44, or any of the rest of the 
forty-five whole verses in the Gospels upon which a slur 
is cast by the Neologian school? Consequently, the area 
of Conflation is greatly reduced. And I venture to think, 
that supposing for a moment the theory to be sound, it 
could not account for any large number of variations, but 
would at the best only be a sign or symptom found every 

1 Introduction, p. 103. 


now and then of the derivation attributed to the Received 

3. But we must go on towards the heart of the question. 
And first to examine Dr. Hort’s eight instances. Unfor- 
tunately, the early patristic evidence on these verses is 
scanty. We have little evidence of a direct character to 
light up the dark sea of conjecture. 

(1) St. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion 
the multitude, when they beheld our Saviour and his 
disciples on their way in a ship crossing to the other side 
of the lake, ran together (cvvedpapov) from all their cities 
to the point which He was making for (éxe?), and arrived 
there before the Lord and His followers (xpojAOov avrots), 
and on His approach came in a body to Him (cvvijAOov zpos 
airév). And on disembarking (kai é£eA@dr, i.e. éx rod tAolov, 
ver. 32), &c. It should be observed, that it was only the 
Apostles who knew that His ultimate object was ‘a desert 
place’ (ver. 31, 30): the indiscriminate multitude could 
only discern the bay or cape towards which the boat was 
going: and up to what I have described as the disembark- 
ation (ver. 34), nothing has been said of His movements, 
except that He was in the boat upon the lake. The 
account is pictorial. We see the little craft toiling on the 
lake, the people on the shores running all in one direction, 
and on their reaching the heights above the place of 
landing watching His approach, and then descending 
together to Him to the point where He is going to land. 
There is nothing weak or superfluous in the description. 
Though condensed (what would a modern history have 
made of it ?), it is all natural and in due place. 

Now for Dr. Hort. He observes that one clause (kai 
mpofdOov avrovs) is attested by BN and their followers ; 
another (kal cvvqAdov adrod or jAOov avtod, which is very 
different from the ‘Syrian’ ovv@AOov apis atrdv) by some 
Western documents; and he argues that the entire form 


in the Received Text, xat apofAOov adrods, Kat ovvidOov 
mpos avtov, was formed by Conflation from the other two. 
I cannot help observing that it is a suspicious mark, that 
even in the case of the most favoured of his chosen exam- 
ples he is obliged to take such a liberty with one of his 
elements of Conflation as virtually to doctor it in order 
to bring it strictly to the prescribed pattern. When we 
come to his arguments he candidly admits, that ‘it is 
evident that either 5 (the Received Text) is conflate from 
a (BN) and 8 (Western), or a and B are independent 
simplifications of 6’; and that ‘there is nothing in the 
sense of 6 that would tempt to alteration,’ and that ‘acci- 
dental’ omission of one or other clause would ‘be easy.’ 
But he argues with an ingenuity that denotes a bad cause 
that the difference between atrod and zpds airéy is really 
in his favour, chiefly because atrod would very likely zf 
it had previously existed been changed into mpds atrév— 
which no one can doubt; and that ‘ovvqAOoyv apds adrov 
is certainly otiose after cvvedpapyov éxei,’ which shews that 
he did not understand the whole meaning of the passage. 
His argument upon what he terms ‘Intrinsic Probability.’ 
leads to a similar inference. For simply é€A@eéyv cannot 
mean that ‘He “came out” of His retirement in some 
sequestered nook to meet them, such a nook being not 
mentioned by St. Mark, whereas wAofoy is; nor can éxet 
denote ‘the desert region.” Indeed the position of that 
region or nook was known before it was reached solely 
to our Lord and His Apostles: the multitude was guided 
only by what they saw, or at least by vague surmise. 
Accordingly, Dr. Hort’s conclusion must be reversed. 
‘The balance of Internal Evidence of Readings, alike from 
Transcriptional and from Intrinsic Probability, is decidedly’ 
not ‘in favour of 6 from a and £8,’ duz¢ ‘of a and B from 6.’ 
The reading of the Traditional Text is the superior both 
as regards the meaning, and as to the probability of its 


pre-existence. The derivation of the two others from that 
is explained by that besetting fault of transcribers which is 
termed Omission. Above all, the Traditional reading is 
proved by a largely over-balancing weight of evidence. 

(2) ‘To examine other passages equally in detail would 
occupy too much space.’ So says Dr. Hort: but we must 
examine points that require attention. 

St. Mark viii. 26. After curing the blind man outside 
Bethsaida, our Lord in that remarkable period of His 
career directed him, according to the Traditional reading, 
(a) neither to enter into that place, unde «is ri Kopnv 
eicéAOns, nor (8) to tell what had happened to any inhabi- 
tant of Bethsaida (unde eis tw ev rH kody). Either some 
one who did not understand the Greek, or some matter- 
of-fact and officious scholar, or both, thought or maintained 
that rit év ti xéyn must mean some one who was at the 
moment actually in the place. So the second clause got 
to be omitted from the text of BX, who are followed only 
by one cursive and a half (the first reading of 1 being 
afterwards corrected), and the Bohairic version, and the 
Lewis MS. The Traditional reading is attested by ACNE 
and thirteen other Uncials, all Cursives except eight, of 
which six with ® read a consolidation of both clauses, by 
several versions, and by Theophylact (i. 210) who is the 
only Father that quotes the place. This evidence ought 
amply to ensure the genuineness of this reading. 

But what says Dr. Hort? ‘Here a is simple and 
vigorous, and it is unique in the New Testament: the 
peculiar Mndé has the terse force of many sayings as given 
by St. Mark, but the softening into Mj by N* shews that 
it might trouble scribes.’ It is surely not necessary to 
controvert this. It may be said however that a is bald as 
well as simple, and that the very difficulty in 8 makes it 
probable that that clause was not invented. To take riwi 
év tH xéun Hebraistically for rwi rév éy ti Kopp, like the 

Il. = 


tis év tuiv of St. James v. 191, need not trouble scholars, 
I think. Otherwise they can follow Meyer, according to 
Winer’s Grammar (II. 511), and translate the second pndé 
nor even. At all events, this is a poor pillar to support 
a great theory. : ; 

(3) St. Mark ix. 38. ‘Master, we saw one casting out 

devils in Thy name, (8) who doth not follow us, and we 
forbad him (a) because he followeth not us.’ 

Here the authority for a is NBCLA, four Cursives, f, 
Bohairic, Peshitto, Ethiopic, and the Lewis MS. For 8 
there are D, two Cursives, all the Old Latin but f and the 
Vulgate. For the Traditional Text, i.e. the whole passage, 
A®ZN + eleven Uncials, all the Cursives but six, the Hark- 
leian (yet obelizes a) and Gothic versions, Basil (ii. 252), 
Victor of Antioch (Cramer, Cat. i. 365), Theophylact (i. 219): 
and Augustine quotes separately both omissions (a ix. 533, 
and £ III. ii. 153). No other Fathers, so far as I can find, 
quote the passage. 

Dr. Hort appears to advance no special arguments on 
his side, relying apparently upon the obvious repetition. 
In the first part of the verse, St. John describes the case 
of the man: in the second he reports for our Lord’s judge- 

ment the grounds of the prohibition which the Apostles. 

gave him. Is it so certain that the original text of the 
passage contained only the description, and omitted the 
reason of the prohibition as it was given to the non- 
follower of our Lord? To me it seems that the simplicity 
of St. Mark’s style is best preserved by the inclusion of 
both. The Apostles did not curtly forbid the man: they 
treated him with reasonableness, and in the same spirit 
St. John reported to his Master all that occurred. Besides 
this, the evidence on the Traditional side is too strong to 
admit of it not being the genuine reading. 

1 Cp. St. Luke xviii. 2, 3. Tis is used with éf, St. Luke xi. 15, xxiv. 24; 
St. John vi. 64, vii. 25, ix. 16, xi. 37, 46; Acts xi. 20, xiii. 1, &c. 

cnet iiecied 


(4) St. Mark ix. 49. ‘For (a) every one shall be salted 
with fire, (8) and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.’ 
The authorities are— 

a. NBLA, fifteen Cursives, some MSS. of the Bohairic, 

some of the Armenian, and the Lewis. 

8. D, six copies of the Old Latin, three MSS. of the 
Vulgate. Chromatius of Aquileia (Galland. viii. 338). 

Trad. Text. AC®EN and twelve more Uncials, all 
Cursives except fifteen, two Old Latin, Vulgate, 
Peshitto, Harkleian, some MSS. of Ethiopic and 
Armenian, Gothic, Victor of Antioch (Cramer’s Cat. 
i. 368), Theophylact (i. 221). 

This evidence must surely be conclusive of the 
genuineness of the Traditional reading. But now for 
Dr. Hort. 

‘A reminiscence of Lev. vii. 13 . . . has created f out 
of a.’ But why should not the reminiscence have been our 
Lord’s? The passage appears like a quotation, or an 
adaptation, of some authoritative saying. He positively 
advances no other argument than the one just quoted, 
beyond stating two points in which the alteration might be 
easily effected. 

(5) St. Luke ix. 10. ‘He took (His Apostles) and 
withdrew privately 

a. Into a city called Bethsaida («is 7éAw xadovpévny B.). 

B. Into a desert place (eis rémov Epnuor), or 

Into a desert place called Bethsaida, or of Bethsaida. 

Trad. Text. Into a desert place belonging to a city 
called Bethsaida.’ 

The evidence for these readings respectively is— 

a. BLX2, with one correction of & (C*), one Cursive, 
the Bohairic and Sahidic. D reads xépnv. 

B. The first and later readings (C) of &, four Cursives?, 
Curetonian, some variant Old Latin (8), Peshitto also 
variant (8°). 



Trad. Text. A (with épnuov rérov) C + twelve Uncials, all 
Cursives except three or five, Harkleian, Lewis (omits 
épnpov), Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, with Theophylact 
(i. 332). 

Remark the curious character of a and 8. In Dr. Hort’s 
Neutral Text, which he maintains to have been the original 
text of the Gospels, our Lord is represented here as having 
withdrawn in private (xa7’ idfavy, which the Revisers shirking 
the difficulty translate inaccurately ‘ apart’) zzto the city 
called Bethsaida. ow could there have been privacy of 
life zz a city in those days? In fact, car’ idéay necessitates 
the adoption of rézov épnuov, as to which the Peshitto (8%) 
is in substantial agreement with the Traditional Text. 
Bethsaida is represented as the capital of a district, which 
included, at sufficient distance from the city, a desert, or 
retired spot. The group arranged under 8 is so weakly 
supported, and is evidently such a group of fragments, 
that it can come into no sort of competition with the 
Traditional reading. Dr. Hort confines himself to shewing 
how the process he advocates might have arisen, not ¢hat 
it did actually arise. Indeed, this position can only be 
held by assuming the conclusion to be established that it 
did so arise. 

(6) St. Luke xi. 54. ‘The Scribes and Pharisees began 

to urge Him vehemently and to provoke Him to speak of 
many things (évedpevovres Onpedoat), 

a, Laying wait for Him to catch something out of His 

B. Seeking to get some opportunity (agopyjv tia) for 
finding out how to accuse Him (iva etpwow xarnyo- 
pyoat); or, 
for accusing Him (iva xatnyopjowow atrod). 

Trad. Text. Laying wait for Him, azd seeking to catch 
something ((yrotvtes Onpedoat t1) out of His mouth, that 
they might accuse Him,’ 


The evidence is— 

a. NBL, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Cyril Alex. (Mai, Nov. Pp. 
Bibliotheca, ii. 87, iii. 249, not accurately). 

8. D, Old Latin except f, Curetonian. 

Trad. Text. AC + twelve Uncials, all Cursives (except 
five which omit (nrodvres), Peshitto, Lewis (with omis- 
sion), Vulgate, Harkleian, Theophylact (i. 363). 

As to genuineness, the evidence is decisive. The reading 

a is Alexandrian, adopted by B-¥, and is bad Greek into 
the bargain, évedpevovtes Onpedoa being very rough, and 
being probably due to incompetent acquaintance with the 
Greek language. If a was the original, it is hard to see 
how 8 could have come from it. That the figurative 
language of a was replaced in 8 by a simply descriptive 
paraphrase, as Dr. Hort suggests, seems scarcely probable. 
On the other hand, the derivation of either a or 8 from the 
Traditional Text is much easier. A scribe would without 
difficulty pass over one of the participles lying contiguously 
with no connecting conjunction, and having a kind of 
Homoeoteleuton. And as to f, the distinguishing dpopuny 
twa would be a very natural gloss, requiring for complete- 
ness of the phrase the accompanying AaBeiv. This is surely 
a more probable solution of the question of the mutual 
relationship of the readings than the laboured account of 
Dr. Hort, which is too long to be produced here. 

(7) St. Luke xii. 18. ‘I will pull down my barns, and 

build greater, and there will I bestow all 

a. My corn and my goods. 

B. My crops (ra yerjpard pov). 

My fruits (rots xapmovs pov). 
Trad. Text. My crops (ra yevijzard pov) and my goods.’ 
This is a faulty instance, because it is simply a substitu- 
tion, as Dr. Hort admitted, in a of the more comprehensive 
word yevijpard for otrov, and a simple omission of kal ra 
dyadd pov in. And the admission of it into the selected 


eight shews the difficulty that Dr. Hort must have experi- 
enced in choosing his examples. The evidence is— 

a. BILX and a correction of N(a°), eight Cursives, 
Peshitto, Bohairic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic. 

B. N*D, three Cursives, b ff i q, Curetonian and Lewis, 

St. Ambrose (i. 573). 

Trad. Text. AQ+thirteen Uncials. All Cursives except 
twelve, f, Vulgate, Harkleian, Cyril’ Alex. (Mai, ii. 
294-5) bis, Theophylact (i. 370), Peter Chrysologus 
(Migne 52, 490-1) dzs. 

No more need be said: substitutions and omissions are 

too common to require justification. 

(8) St. Luke xxiv. 53. ‘They were continually in the 

a. Blessing God (edAoyodrres). 

8. Praising God (aivodvres). 

Trad. Text. Praising and blessing God.’ 

The evidence is— 

a. NBC*L, Bohairic, Palestinian, Lewis. 

B. D, seven Old Latin. 

Trad. Text. AC*+twelve Uncials, all Cursives, c f q, 
Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, Armenian, Ethiopic, ° 
Theophylact (i. 497). 

Dr. Hort adds no remarks. He seems to have thought, 
that because he had got an instance which outwardly met 
all the requirements laid down, therefore it would prove the 
conclusion it was intended to prove. Now it is evidently an 
instance of the omission of either of two words from the 
complete account by different witnesses. The Evangelist 
employed both words in order to emphasize the gratitude 
of the Apostles. The words are not tautological. Atvos is 
the set praise of God, drawn out in more or less length, 
properly as offered in addresses to Him. EvaAoyia includes 
all speaking well of Him, especially when uttered before 

1 Thus €ravos is used for a public encomium, or panegyric. 


other men. Thus the two expressions describe in com- 

_ bination the life of gratitude exhibited unceasingly by 

the expectant and the infant Church. Continually in the 
temple they praised Him in devotion, and told the people 
of His glorious works. 

4. Such are the eight weak pillars upon which Dr. Hort 
built his theory which was to account for the existence of 
his Neutral Text, and the relation of it towards other Texts 
or classes of readings. If his eight picked examples can 
be thus demolished, then surely the theory of Conflation 
must be utterly unsound. Or if in the opinion of some of 
my readers my contention goes too far, then at any rate 
they must admit that it is far from being firm, if it does 
not actually reel and totter. The opposite theory of 
omission appears to be much more easy and natural. 

But the curious phenomenon that Dr. Hort has rested 
his case upon so small an induction as is supplied by only 
eight examples—if they are not in fact only seven—has 
not yet received due explanation. Why, he ought to have 
referred to twenty-five or thirty at least. If Conflation is 
so common, he might have produced a large number of 
references without working out more than was enough for 
illustration as patterns. This question must be investigated 
further. And I do not know how to carry out such an 
investigation better, than to examine some instances which 
come naturally to hand from the earlier parts of each 

It must be borne in mind, that for Conflation two dif- 
ferently-attested phrases or words must be produced which 
are found in combination in some passage of the Traditional 
Text. If there is only one which is omitted, it is clear 
that there can be no Conflation because there must be at 
least two elements to conflate: accordingly our instances 
must be cases, not of single omission, but of double or 
alternative omission. If again there isno Western reading, 


it is not a Conflation in Dr. Hort’s sense. And finally, if 
the remaining reading is not a ‘ Neutral ’one, it is not to 
Dr. Hort’s liking. I do not say that my instances will 
conform with these conditions. Indeed, after making a list 
of all the omissions in the Gospels, except those which are 
of too petty a character such as leaving out a pronoun, 
and having searched the list with all the care that I can 
command, ‘I do not think that such instances can be 
found. Nevertheless, I shall take eight, starting from the 
beginning of St. Matthew, and choosing the most salient 
examples, being such also that, if Dr. Hort’s theory be 
sound, they ought to conform to his requirements. Simi- 
larly, there will come then four from either of St. Mark 
and St. Luke, and eight from St. John. This course of 
proceeding will extend operations from the eight which 
form Dr. Hort’s total to thirty-two. 

A. In St. Matthew we have (1) i. 25, abrijs rov mpwroroKov 
and rov Yiov ; (2) v. 22, efx and To ddeAd@ adrod ; (3) ix. 13, 
eis petdvorav; (4) x. 3, AeBBatos and Oadédatos; (5) xii. 22, 
tuprdov kat and Kwddv ; (6) XV. 5, Tov TaTépa adrod and (7) riv 
pntépa avtod; (7) xviii. 35, amd tév Kapdidv dyer and ra 
Tapant@pata avrév; and (8) xxvi. 3, of mpeoBvrepor (kal) of 
Tpapparets. I have had some difficulty in making up the 
number. Of those selected as well as I could, seven are 
cases of single omission or of one pure omission apiece, 
though their structure presents a possibility of two members 
for Conflation; whilst the Western element comes in 
sparsely or appears in favour of both the omission and 
the retention; and, thirdly, in some cases, as in (2) and 
(3), the support is not only Western, but universal. Conse- 
quently, all but (4) are excluded. Of(4) Dr. Hort remarks, 
(Notes on Select Readings, p. 11) that it is ‘a case of 
Conflation of the true and the chief Western Texts, and 
accordingly it does not come within the charmed circle. 

B. From St. Mark we get, (1) i. 1, Yiod rod Oeod and “Incod 



Xpiotod ; (2) i. 2, EumpooOev cov and mpd mpoodmov cov (cp. ix. _ 
38); (3) iii. 15, Ocpamedew tas vécovs (cat) and éxBdAAev ra 
dadvia; (4) xiii. 33, dypumvetre and (kal) mpooedxecde. All 
these instances turn out to be cases of the omission of only 
one of the parallel expressions. The omission in the first is 
due mainly to Origen (see Traditional Text, Appendix IV) : 
in the three last there is Western evidence on both sides. 

C. St. Luke yields us, (1) ii. 5, ywvasxé and PepLnoTEvpery ; 
(2) iv. 4, éml wavti pryate Ocod, or én’ dpro pdre ; (3) viii. 54, 
exBaav éw mavras (kat), or kparynoas Tis xetpds adtis; xi. 4, 
(GAAa) picat Huds and tod Tovnpod, or ph eloevéyans Has els 
metpacnov. In all these cases, examination discloses that 
they are examples of pure omission of only one of the 
alternatives. The only evidence against this is the solitary 
rejection of wewvnorevyévn by the Lewis Codex. 

D. We now come to St. John. See (1) iii. 15, wh ardAn- 
Tal, or €xn wip aidviov; (2) iv. 14, od wn dupjon els Tov aidva, 
or 70 tdwp d ddcw aire yerjcerat ev aito yyy Vdaros, k.T.A. ; 
(3) iv. 42, 6 Xptords, or 6 owtijp tod Kdopou; (4) iv. 51, Kal 
annyyethkay and déyovtes ; (5) v. 16, kal e(nrovy abrov amo- 
kreivat and édfwxoy atrdv; (6) vi. 51, iv éy® d6c, or dv éya 
ddow; (7) ix. 1, 25, kat elmev or dmexplOn; (8) xiii. 31, 32, «i 
6 Ocds edofacOn ev adro, and kal 6 Ocds eokdoOn ev airo. All 
these instances turn out to be single omissions :—a fact which 
is the more remarkable, because St. John’s style so readily 
lends itself to parallel or antithetical expressions involving 
the same result in meaning, that we should expect confla- 
tions to shew themselves constantly if the Traditional Text 
had so coalesced. 

How surprising a result :—almost too surprising. Does 
it not immensely strengthen my contention that Dr. Hort 
took wrongly Conflation for the reverse process? That 
in the earliest ages, when the Church did not include in 
her ranks so much learning as it has possessed ever since, 
the wear and tear of time, aided by unfaith and carelessness, 


made itself felt in many an instance of destructiveness 
which involved a temporary chipping of the Sacred Text 
all through the Holy Gospels? And, in fact, that Conflation 
at least as an extensive process, if not altogether, did not 
really exist. 

§ >» 

Here we are brought face to face with the question 
respecting the Neutral Text. What in fact is it, and does 
it deserve the name which Dr. Hort and his followers have 
attempted to confer permanently upon it? What is the 
relation that it bears to other so-called Texts? 

So much has been already advanced upon this subject in 
the companion volume and in the present, that great 
conciseness is here both possible and expedient. But it 
may be useful to bring the sum or substance of those 
discussions into one focus. 

1. The so-called Neutral Text, as any reader of Dr. 
Hort’s Introduction will see, is the text of B and N and 
their small following. . That following is made up of Z in 
St. Matthew, A in St. Mark, the fragmentary 2 in St. Luke, 
with frequent agreement with them of D, and of the eighth 
century L; with occasional support from some of the 
group of Cursives, consisting of 1, 33, 118, 131, 157, 205, 209, 
and from the Ferrar group, or now and then from some 
others, as well as from the Latin k, and the Egyptian or 
other versions. This perhaps appears to be a larger 
number than our readers may have supposed, but rarely 
are more than ten MSS. found together, and generally 
speaking less, and often much less thanthat. To all general 
intents and purposes, the Neutral Text is the text of B-N. 

2. Following facts and avoiding speculation, the Neutral 
Text appears hardly in history except at the Semiarian 


period. It was almost disowned ever after: and there is 
no certainty—nothing more than inference which we hold, 
and claim to have proved, to be imaginary and delusive,— 
that, except as represented in the corruption which it 
gathered out of the chaos of the earliest times, it made 
any appearance. 

3. Thus, as a matter of history acknowledged by Dr. 
Hort, it was mainly superseded before the end of the 
century of its emergence by the Traditional Text, which, 
except in the tenets of a school of critics in the nineteenth 
century, has reigned supreme ever since. 

4. That it was not the original text of the Gospels, as 
maintained by Dr. Hort, I claim to have established from 
an examination of the quotations from the Gospels made by 
the Fathers. It has been proved that not only in number, 
but still more conclusively in quality, the Traditional Text 
enjoyed a great superiority of attestation over all the kinds 
of corruption advocated by some critics which I have just. 
now mentioned!. This conclusion is strengthened by the 
verdict of the early versions. 

5. The inferiority of the ‘ Neutral Text’ is demonstrated 
by the overwhelming weight of evidence which is mar- 
shalled against it on passages under dispute. This glaring 
contrast is increased by the disagreement among them- 
selves of the supporters of that Text, or class of readings. 
As to antiquity, number, variety, weight, and continuity, 
that Text falls hopelessly behind : and by internal evidence 
also the texts of B and &, and still more the eccentric text 
of the Western D, are proved to be manifestly inferior. 

6. It has been shewn also by evidence, direct as well as 

1 An attempt in the Guardian has been made in a review full of errors to 
‘weaken the effect of my list by an examination of an unique set of details. A 
correction both of the reviewer's figures in one instance and of my own may 
be found above, pp. 144-153. There is no virtue in an exact proportion of 
3:2,orof6:1. A great majority will ultimately be found on our side. 


inferential, that B and WN issued nearly together from the 
library or school of Caesarea. The fact of their being the 
oldest MSS. of the New Testament in existence, which has 
naturally misled people and caused them to be credited 
with extraordinary value, has’ been referred, as being 
mainly due, to their having been written on vellum accord- 
ing to the fashion introduced in that school, instead of the 
ordinary papyrus. The fact of such preservation is really 
to their discredit, instead of resounding to their honour, 
because if they had enjoyed general approval, they would 
probably have perished creditably many centuries ago in 
the constant use for which they were intended. 

Such are the main points in the indictment and in the 
history of the Neutral Text, or rather—to speak with 
more appropriate accuracy, avoiding the danger of drawing 
with too definite a form and too deep a shade—of the 
class of readings represented by B and &. It is interesting 
to trace further, though very summarily, the connexion 
between this class of readings and the corruptions of the 
Original Text which existed previously to the early middle 
of the fourth century. Such brief tracing will lead us to 
a view of some causes of the development of Dr. Hort’s 

The analysis of Corruption supplied as to the various 
kinds of it by Dean Burgon has taught us how they 
severally arose. This is fresh in the mind of readers, and 
I will not spoil it by repetition. But the studies of textual 
critics have led them to combine all kinds of corruption 
chiefly under the two heads of the Western or Syrio- 
Low-Latin class, and in a less prominent province of the 
Alexandrian. Dr. Hort’s Neutral is really a combination 
of those two, with all the accuracy that these phenomena 
admit. But of course, if the Neutral were indeed the 
original Text, it would not do for it to be too closely con- 
nected with one of such bad reputation as the Western, 


which must be kept in the distance at all hazards. There- 
fore he represented it—all unconsciously no doubt and 
with the best intention—as one of the sources of the 
Traditional, or as he called it the ‘Syrian’ Text. Hence 
this imputed connexion between the Western and the 
Traditional Text became the essential part of his framework 
of Conflation, which could not exist without it. For any 
permanent purpose, all this handiwork was in vain. To 
say no more, D, which is the chief representative of the 
Western Text, is too constant a supporter of the peculiar 
readings of B and N not to prove its near relationship to 
them. The ‘Neutral’ Text derives the chief part of its 
support from Western sources. It is useless for Dr. Hort 
to disown his leading constituents. And on the other. 
hand, the Syrio-Low-Latin Text is too alien to the Tra- 
ditional to be the chief element in any process, Conflate or 
other, out of which it could have been constructed. The 
occasional support of some of the Old Latin MSS. is 
nothing to the point in such a proof. They are so fitful 
and uncertain, that some of them may witness to almost 
anything. If Dr. Hort’s theory of Conflation had been 
sounder, there would have been no lack of examples. 

‘Naturam expellas furca: tamen usque recurret.’ 

He was tempted to the impossible task of driving water 
uphill. Therefore I claim, not only to have refuted Dr. 
Hort, whose theory is proved to be even more baseless 
than I ever imagined, but by excavating more deeply than 
he did, to have discovered the cause of his error. 

No: the true theory is, that the Traditional Text—not 
in superhuman perfection, though under some superhuman 
Guidance—is the embodiment of the original Text of the 
New Testament. In the earliest times, just as false 
doctrines were widely spread, so corrupt readings prevailed 
in many places. Later on, when Christianity was better 


understood, and the Church reckoned amongst the learned 
and holy of her members the finest natures and intellects 
of the world, and many clever men of inferior character 
endeavoured to vitiate Doctrine and lower Christian life, 
evil rose to the surface, and was in due time after a severe 
struggle removed by the sound and faithful of the day. 
So heresy was rampant for a while, and was then replaced 
by true and well-grounded belief. With great ability and 
with wise discretion, the Deposit whether of Faith or Word 
was verified and established. General Councils decided in 
those days upon the Faith, and the Creed when accepted 
and approved by the universal voice was enacted for good 
and bequeathed to future ages. So it was both as to the 
Canon and the Words of Holy Scripture, only that all 
was done quietly. As to the latter, hardly a footfall was 
heard. But none the less, corruption after short-lived 
prominence sank into deep and still deeper obscurity, whilst 
the teaching of fifteen centuries placed the true Text upon 
a firm and lasting basis. 

And so I venture to hold, now that the question has 
been raised, both the learned and the well-informed will 
come gradually to see, that no other course respecting the 
Words of the New Testament is so strongly justified by 
the evidence, none so‘sound and large-minded, none so 
reasonable in every way, none so consonant with intelligent 
faith, none so productive of guidance and comfort and 
hope, as to maintain against all the assaults of cor- 


ay pe 



N or Sinaitic MS., 2, 196. 
Accident, 8; pure A., 24-35. 
Addition, 166-7, 270. 

Ages, earliest, 2. 

Alexandrian error, 45; readings, 
App. II. 268, 284. 

Alford, passim. 

Ammonius, 200. 

Antiquity, our appeal always made 
to, 194-5. 

Apolinarius, or -is (or Apoll.), 224, 

Arians, 204, 218. 

Assimilation, 100-127; what it was, 
101-2; must be delicately handled, 

Attraction, 123-7. 


B or Vatican M&., 2, 8, 196; kaki- 
graphy of, 64 note: virtually with 
N the ‘ Neutral’ text, 282. 

Basilides, 195, 197-9, 218 note 2. 

Blunder, history of a, 24-7. 

Bohairic Version, 249, and passim. 


Caesarea, library of, 284. 

Cerinthus, 201. 

Clement of Alexandria, 193. 

Conflation, 266-82. 

Correctors of MSS., 21. 

Corruption, first origin of, 3-8; 
classes of 8-9, 23; general, 10-23; 
prevailed from the first, 12; the 
most corrupt authorities, 8, 14; in 
early Fathers, 193-4. 

Curetonian Version, assim. See 
Traditional Text. 

Cursive MSS., a group of eccentric, 
282; Ferrar group, 282. 


D or Codex Bezae, 8. 

A, or Sangallensis, 8. 

Damascus, 5. 

Diatessarons, 89, 96-8, 101. See 

Doxology, in the Lord’s Prayer, 81-8. 


Eclogadion, 69. 

Epiphanius, 205, 211-2. 

Erasmus, Io, 

Error, slight clerical, 27-31. 
Euroclydon, 46. 

Evangelistaria (the right name), 67. 


Falconer’s St. Paul’s voyage, 46-7. 
Fathers, passim ; earliest, 193. 
Faustinus, 218. 

Ferrar group of Cursives, 282. 
Field, Dr., 28 note 5, 30 and note 2. 


Galilee of the Gentiles, 4-5. 

Genealogy, 22. See Traditional 

Glosses, 94-5, 
scribed, 172. 

Gospels, the four, probable date of, 7. 

Guardian, review in, Pref., 150-2, 
283 note. 

Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., 115 note. 

98, 172-90; de- 


Harmonistic influence, 89-99. 

Heracleon, 190, 202, 204, 215 note 2. 

Heretics, corruptions by, 199-210; 
not always dishonest, 191; very 
“numerous, 199 &c. 

Homoeoteleuton, 36-41; explained, 


understood, and the Church reckoned amongst the learned 
and holy of her members the finest natures and intellects 
of the world, and many clever men of inferior character 
endeavoured to vitiate Doctrine and lower Christian life, 
evil rose to the surface, and was in due time after a severe 
struggle removed by the sound and faithful of the day. 
So heresy was rampant for a while, and was then replaced 
by true and well-grounded belief. With great ability and 
with wise discretion, the Deposit whether of Faith or Word 
was verified and established. General Councils decided in 
those days upon the Faith, and the Creed when accepted 
and approved by the universal voice was enacted for good 
and bequeathed to future ages. So it was both as to the 
Canon and the Words of Holy Scripture, only that all 
was done quietly. As to the latter, hardly a footfall was 
heard. But none the less, corruption after short-lived 
prominence sank into deep and still deeper obscurity, whilst 
the teaching of fifteen centuries placed the true Text upon 
a firm and lasting basis. 

And so I venture to hold, now that the question has 
been raised, both the learned and the well-informed will 
come gradually to see, that no other course respecting the 
Words of the New Testament is so strongly justified by 
the evidence, none so’sound and large-minded, none so 
reasonable in every way, none so consonant with intelligent 
faith, none so productive of guidance and comfort and 
hope, as to maintain against all the assaults of cor- 




N or Sinaitic MS., 2, 196. 
Accident, 8; pure A., 24-35. 
Addition, 166-7, 270. 

Ages, earliest, 2. 

Alexandrian error, 45; readings, 
App. II. 268, 284. 

Alford, passim. 

Ammonius, 200. 

Antiquity, our appeal always made 
to, 194-5. 

Apolinarius, or -is (or Apoll.), 224, 

Arians, 204, 218. 

Assimilation, 100-127; what it was, 
101-2; must be delicately handled, 

Attraction, 123-7. 


B or Vatican MS&., 2, 8, 196; kaki- 
graphy of, 64 note: virtually with 
N the ‘ Neutral’ text, 282. 

Basilides, 195, 197-9, 218 note 2. 

Blunder, history of a, 24-7. 

Bohairic Version, 249, and passim. 


Caesarea, library of, 284. 

Cerinthus, 201. 

Clement of Alexandria, 193. 

Conflation, 266-82. 

Correctors of MSS., 21. 

Corruption, first origin of, 3-8; 
classes of 8-9, 23; general, 10-23; 
prevailed from the first, 12; the 
most corrupt authorities, 8, 14; in 
early Fathers, 193-4. 

Curetonian Version, passim. See 
Traditional Text. 

Cursive MSS., a group of eccentric, 
282; Ferrar group, 282. 


D or Codex Bezae, 8. 

A, or Sangallensis, 8. 

Damascus, 5. 

Diatessarons, 89, 96-8, 101. See 

Doxology, in the Lord’s Prayer, 81-8. 


Eclogadion, 69. 

Epiphanius, 205, 211-2. 

Erasmus, Io, 

Error, slight clerical, 27-31. 
Euroclydon, 46 

Evangelistaria (the right name), 67. 


Falconer’s St. Paul’s voyage, 46-7. 
Fathers, passim ; earliest, 193. 
Faustinus, 218. 

Ferrar group of Cursives, 282. 
Field, Dr., 28 note 5, 30 and note 2. 


Galilee of the Gentiles, 4-5. 

Genealogy, 22. See Traditional 

Glosses, 94-5, 
scribed, 172. 

Gospels, the four, probable date of, 7. 

Guardian, review in, Pref., 150-2, 
283 note. 

Gwilliam, Rey. G. H., 115 note. 

98, 172-90; de- 


Harmonistic influence, 89-99. 
Heracleon, 190, 202, 204, 215 note 2. 
Heretics, corruptions by, 199-210; 
not always dishonest, 191; very 
“numerous, 199 &c. 
Homoeoteleuton, 36-41; explained, 



Inadvertency, 21, 23. 
Internal evidence, Pref. 
Interpolations, 166-7. 
Irenaeus, St., 193. 
Itacism, 8, 56-86. 

; J. 
Justin Martyr, St., 193. 


L or Codex Regius, 8. 

Lachmann, assim. 

Last Twelve Verses, 72, 129-30. 

Latin MSS., Old, pass?m; Low- 
Latin, 8. See Traditional Text. 

Lectionaries, 67-81 ; ecclesiastical 
prefaces to, 71. 

Lewis MS., fassim, 194. 

Liturgical influence, 67-88. 


Macedonians, 204. 

Manes, 207. 

Manichaeans, 206. 

Manuscripts, six classes of, 12; 
existing number of, 12; frequent 
inaccuracies in, I2; more serious 
faults, 20-1 ; and passzm. 

Marcion, 70, 195, 197, 199, 200, 219. 

Matrimony, 208. 

Menologion, 69. 


Waaseni, 204. 
‘Neutral Text,’ 267, 282-6. 


Omissions, 128-156; the largest of 
all classes, 128 ; not ‘ various read- 
ings,’ 128; prejudice in favour of, 
130-1; proof of, 131-2; natural 
cause of corruption, 270. 

Origen, 53-5, 98, 101, 111-3, 190, 
193, 209. 

Orthodox, corruption by, 211-31, 
misguided, 211. 


Papyrus MSS.,2. See Traditional 

Parallel passages, 95. 

Pella, 7. 

Pericope de Adultera, 232-65. 


Peshitto Version, assim. See 
Traditional Text. 
Porphyry, 114. 


Revision, 10-13. 
Rose, Rev. W. F., 61 note 3. 


ZaPBaroxuptakal, 68. 

Sahidic Version, 194. 

Saturninus, or Saturnilus, 208 and 
note 3. 

Scrivener’s Introduction (4th Ed.), 
Miller’s, passim. 

Semiarianism, 2. 

Substitution, 164-5, 270, 277. 

Synaxarion, 69. 


Tatian’s Diatessaron, §, 98, Iol, 
196, 200. 

Textualism of the Gospels, dif- 
ferent from T. of profane writings, 

Theodotus, 205, 214. 

Tischendorf, 112-3, 176, 182, and 
passim; misuse of Assimilation, 

Traditional Text, 1-4; not=Re- 
ceived Text, 1. See Volume on it. 

Transcriptional Mistakes, 55. 

Transposition, 157-63; character 
of, 163, 270. 

Tregelles, 34, 136, 138. 

Uncials, 42-55. 


Valentinus, 197-9, 201, 202-5, 215, 
218 note 2. 

Various readings, 14-16. 

Vellum, 2. 

Vercellone, 47 note. 

Versions, passim. 

Victorinus Afer, 218. 

Western Readings or Text, 6, 
Z or Dublin palimpsest, 8. 




Poy ee 


INDEX. tis 

St. MARK: 
YO Sek ecg) ee i 21 

5 - 157-8 
13 - 158-9 
iv. 6s. - . 63-4 
v. 36 : 188 
vi. 11 . 118-9, 181-2 

Lvl - + 32-3 
oo 271-3 
vii. 14 . 35 
Ig . . 61-3 
“or 72-3 
viii. I. 34 
26. 273-4 

ix. 38%. 271 
49 : : 275 
X10; 3 48 
es Pa ty ae 48 
xiv. 40 . 48 
41 182-3 

' 70 119-22 
xv, 6. 32 
ey i eit mm eet iy feo: 
Xvi. Q-20. 72, 129-30 

St. LUKE: 

i. 66. 188-9 
ii, 14. . 21-2, 31-2 
IB. «2236 
{ity Tash s 201 
29+. - 165 
iv. I-13. 94 
Vv. 7 rue 108 
T4c hs 104 
Vigil 2s 132-3 
4 ‘ 167 
26-5: 153 



ST. LUKE (cont.) : 
Vis 3: 174 
aT G 5o 
154 74 
r6% 275-0 
54-6 224-31 
Xe BA oS aie i 
25 - 75 
xi. 54. 276-7 
xii, 18 . 277-8 
29. 155 
xiii. 9. 160-1 
XIV." 3. 117 
xv. 16. 117 
17. 3-5 
) " ‘ 61 
a2). 61 
xvi. 21 . 40 
a5. 60 
xvii. 37 . . 48-9 
eo eae He 103 
41 212 
xxii. 67-8 210 
xxiii. II . 50-1 
ag 51 
_ 42. 57 
ARVs ES 92-4 
vee 161 
53- 278 

St. JoHN: 

is. -g= . 203 
13 : 215-8, 165 
ii. 40. 212-4 
iii. 13. 223-4 
WWicES:.3 48 
Vv. . 50 
: 162 

290 INDEX II. 

St. JOHN (cont.): St. JOHN (cont.) : 2 Cor.: 
Watt cg Yow cee | ABW RU EO io" coast ns PLOR 
VLEET 5 Ss ce si 37-8} SRV. Ae IE GOTO 
The. « 0238, 178s) XVL. 4. a's) TOO-E 
BH. |. E8841 SEAT > iol as 2 Gay pees 

ae 124 as 65-6 
vill. 40. . . 214-5] ACTS: 
ix. 22 183 ii. 45-6 159 
<uck4-18 206-8} iii, 1 78-80 | HEB 
8D ee Se 84K 9 | AVE 6 Se 52 AT Oa rye AES 
aa ayes ORTHO SGt Ale oer QO 
Ware, eee BLOA—O 24. . 28, 124-5 
Te oS. 00. (xxvib-d4s 3s 2 ceeds eee 
xiii, 21-5 106-II 37 27 We Rede too per eee 
2 Amores tevan eotl7 Ot XXVIII," ery 27 Se, aa oS 
ASK Sea: ic 60 
BOs cae i Lea IOCORS: REV 
Bed ckey et Tie £35 XV47o. @ (6. 21Q=23 hi Roe tes HO =00 



Demy 8vo, tos. 6d. net. 
The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, 



‘One of the most elaborate treatises on Textual Criticism that has ever been 
produced.’— 7zmes. 

‘ All scholars, whether they agree or not with Mr. Miller, will feel a debt of 
gratitude to him for his painstaking labour, and the skill and learning which 
he has brought to bear. It is no light achievement to have made a book of 
this kind so readable to the ordinary public; while the scholar will find 
nothing assumed, and nothing slurred over, but a solid weight of learning 
and a reserve of strength underneath its pleasant periods. There are copious 
references and careful indices. And everything is brought up to the most 
recent. date... a. 

‘We wish Mr. Miller good speed in the arduous task yet before him of 
bringing out to the world the further materials towards a true apprehension 
of the Textual Problem left behind him by Dean Burgon.’—Church Times. 

‘It is impossible to do justice to the elaborate arguments of such a book as 
this within the compass of an ordinary review, but we trust that they will 
receive the fullest and most patient examination. Criticism is the careful 
weighing of evidence with a view to decision, not the tabulating of a series of 
axioms or the employment of evidence which to many scholars is so much 
subjectivity . ... It is a most able and learned defence of the Traditional 
Text, and presents, we feel convinced, an exceedingly strong case, which will 
require very weighty arguments if it is to be confuted.’-—Zecord. 

‘ Any who are interested in the text of the Scriptures—and who is not ?— 
should make themselves acquainted with Dean Burgon’s views.’—Rock. 

‘From this mass of material Mr. Miller has produced, on the whole very 
successfully, a continuous and orderly treatise.’ — Zadiet. 

‘The book contains much interesting information, and Mr, Miller shows that 
he has thoroughly studied the subject. —Athenaeum. 


‘A body of evidence . ... which from many points of view appears to be 
unanswerable. —Morning Post. 

‘A brilliant argument for the Traditional Text.’.—Church Bells. 

‘Mr. Miller, who was thoroughly in sympathy with Dean Burgon’s methods 
of work, and with the general conclusions at which he had arrived, has now 
published a volume made up in part of the Dean’s papers, with large additions 
from his own stores; and for his work every student of the Gospels will be 
grateful. ... No one can have anything but welcome for a full discussion 
of the whole question. . . . We hope that it may be widely read, and that it 
may stimulate fresh independent study in the region of textual criticism.’ 
—Dr. J. H. Bernard in Expository Times. 

‘We gladly acknowledge the care, industry, and ability with which Dean 
Burgon’s case-has been prepared and presented by Mr. Miller. Those who 
desire to see it at its best should read this book.’ —A/ethodist Recorder. 

‘The reader will find the arguments in favour of the antiquity of the Tra- 
ditional Text stated and set forth in this volume with great learning and 
ability.,— Scotsman. 

‘It is impossible not to recognize the enormous labour which has been spent 
upon the task.’—Manchester Guardian. 

‘The book before us is a fresh effort in this direction, and in clearness of 
style, in simplicity of arrangement, and in brilliancy of language, it forms 
a favourable contrast to anything that has proceeded from the opposite school.’ 
C. E. S. M. in Chichester Diocesan Gazette. 

‘ This is a patient and lucid exposition of the views of that school of criticism 
of which the late Dean Burgon was the great leader. It is most interesting, and 
Mr. Miller has done his part with singular ability and sincerity.’—Bookselling. 

‘While it would be presumptuous in us, who do not pretend to be qualified 
to pronounce on such matters, to declare that the author and editor of this 
book have proved their case against the upholders of the supreme authority 
of the old uncial versions, we may at least say that their criticism appears to 
us to have a special importance, in that it shows a greater appreciation of the 
value of historical evidence than will be found in the work of the scholars of 
the other party. We shall look forward with interest to the appearance of 
a second volume, which is promised, on the ‘Causes of the Corruption of the 
Traditional Text.’— Journal of Education. 

GEORGE BELL & SONS, York Street, Covent Garden. 

WI ao 

University of California 
405 Hilgard Avenue; Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
Return this material to the library 
from which it was borrowed. 

APR 271902 


MAY 28 1992 

MAY 23 1999 


A 000 048 383 4 

ow eee i ik erro) we 2 Ms ae ~ oe POR 1 Aa gs Z : ; 
sate Avery Oma SS Solarrenns Sirti eel acne od she TW Slat so hearuit Wal pa> Se) pPERS mae a eee dod? 46 ety, 4 NE ‘ " ’ emul ie sis 4 = ed : ; 
s<teaigny kM Oe a 4 ARE 0 pale . i | hts saeeeet Peps mmr oo See nent ty nn es Sa oe RL ¥ % 
Lie PR A ee ee 8 Ba ea snl Ng AE a er 4 a met il Cm NA id art ntl enema anc - a sh lind tate cle eee en ae a J i 
j } 
! : 
\ * 
5 ‘ 
} : ‘ * 
b : ae 
t = re 
‘ = 2% i 
’ * ' 
5 . 7 2 

ee A EE TT hs net